Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive806

User:Giano

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am not sure how to proceed with the editor User:Giano - that seems to have a problem communication in a mature fashion and is attacking me every time I come across them. What has lead me here is the most recent blanking of a post as seen here. I have only encountered this editor on 2 or 3 occasions. My problem with this editor started when they simply called me lazy - then progressed with post making fun of my MS as seen at Wikipedia talk:Accessibility dos and don'ts#Quotations. I let all this go as I assumed I would not see the editor again - but then I encountered them at Talk:Montacute House#Article mentioned at Manual of Style and the same type of behavior started again - that progressed to calling me a troll at an MOS conversation, deleting my post ect. The editor seems to believe I have some sort of an associations with infoboxes and related editors - for the recorded I don't add or removed infoboxes and have never reverted the editor in question contributions. They seem to have a problem that I am an advocate for accessibility for the disable and our readers at large.I am looking for a small sanction - so that this type of behavior has been documented In case it happens again in the future. This is the type of behavior needs to be nipped in the butt. Moxy (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Prior to this notice, I reverted the edits which deleted Moxy's post; and left a note on both editors' talk pages, pointing that out. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) How Freudian. Giano has been nipped in the butt before now. Andy, surely you're aware that you're the absolutely last person who should leave notes on Giano's page. That's completely not constructive. Bishonen | talk 18:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen, I would not bother to get too involved, nobody in their right mind is going to take this seriously. Moxy is always very Freudian, he found me 'appealing' earlier today. Mabbit and Moxy patrolling in union remind me of a Wikipedia essay I wrote years ago [1]. Don't bother commenting to them, it will only serve as encouragement.  Giano  18:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You think I should not have notified him of the revert? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, that's what I think. The new notification system informs users when their edits are reverted. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC).

It doesn't tell them why. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I will let each of our reputations and interactions with editors speak for themselves. if you where to actually investigate before making wild accusations you would see that I and Mabbit dont see eye to eye on many things (currently in a civil dispute that is progressing well) . -- Moxy (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know any of the history of this, particularly betweeen Giano and Andy apparently, but I could really live without the continous self-indulgent sarcasm. Giano, Moxy clearly meant appalling, not appealing, and your constant mocking is not constructive - and you do it with such relish. On that one talk page, it was unrelenting.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh no <sob> are you telling me that Moxy does not find me 'appealing'? Why not - is it something I've done? Next you'll be telling me that Moxy doesn't want to 'nip my butt' - I was rather looking forward to that. You North Americans are all tease and no action.  Giano  19:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It is very clear you dont have the maturity to engage editors in a respectful manner. I think you need a holiday to reflect on how you could better interact with people in the future. I am now formally asking for a 1 month block in light of the ongoing incivility and mockery. -- Moxy (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, telling Giano he looks like a fool in this exchange and telling him to "grow up" in your edit summary does not advance the cause of civility either. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You are correct after being attack many many many times I voiced my concern - then posted here. As would anyone who is being bullied and harassed. -- Moxy (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You really can't have it both ways Moxy. If Giano is blocked for incivility then so should you be. Eric Corbett 23:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

And how is that? Show me how I was anything but very tolerant of his behavior for the past few months. All can see the events that took place and the order things happened in. We are simply tired of having to deal with editors like this. You may personally like the person and think there cool, but that does not excuse the behavior all of us can see clear as day. if this were an IP there would not even be this tlak. -- Moxy (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, Giano has always engaged me in a respectful manner, and I have fired back in the same spirit. A quick overview of clashes between English and Italian battleships will give an idea of the results! If a holiday is needed, we could all meet up in Malta. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This may be your experiences with this editor - but as demonstrated above if the editor in question does not like you they go out of there way to make sure they insult you and even go so far as to delete posts. Not sure what others think but this type of behavior is simply not acceptable to us older editors. -- Moxy (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're taking this entirely too personally. I very much doubt that Giano has an opinion of you at all as a person, as I assume you don't know each other in real life. But you have to remind yourself that he worked hard on the Montacute House article to get it to where it is today, and inevitably he'd prefer not to see it turn into the usual WP grey goo. Mabbett's involvement has clearly not helpful either, given his long-standing dispute with all and sundry about infoboxes. Eric Corbett 00:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant spin on NPA. If you don't know each other in real-life, and you don't have a declared "opinion" of that person as a person, there logically can be no "personal attacks". Doc talk 01:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I never mentioned NPA, so I can only assume that you must be among those who see "personal attacks" around every corner and in every word. Eric Corbett 10:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You all can do or say whatever you like, but my view is that Giano has been and will probably continue to be uncivil. And warning him of it will do scant good as he seems to be protected. If I were you, Moxy, I'd ignore him completely. He'll just feed on any response you make. Indifference is best.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree will just ignore the person - But do think the community needs address editors of this nature - they are a determent to the project at large and the community needs to step-up and confront bullies like this -- Moxy (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a suggestion but if Giano is being uncivil then someone should block him for a day or 2 to think about it. He's not an admin, just a regular old run of the mill editor so it shouldn't be a problem. Part of the problem with this place is that we are too tolerant of bullies and uncivil editors, especially those with admin tools. We shouldn't be afraid to block them for it. Kumioko (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not start by blocking a few of the bullying and uncivil admins if you want to make a difference? If there was no bullying from them and their acolytes there would be no temptation to respond to it. Eric Corbett 00:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree, unfortunately the only thing harder than becoming an admin is getting rid of one. With that said though at the rate the admins are resigning their tools or stopping editing due to things like VE it may not matter. In a few months time there won't be anyone left. Kumioko (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I left Wikipedia for a year, and come back and the same people are being discussed about at AN/I for the same reasons and with the same results ("let's ignore them"). How sad admins will block some people but not others, and those that get bullied and stand up for themselves are told "well you were uncivil too". There's a difference between standing up for yourself and just being an ass; we should never attack the victim. I remember one person who I took to AN/I saying "I don't have to defend my actions, I just have to bloody the victim" which is a statement that comes from rape cases where the defense was to bloody the victim. Some here are pros at doing that. It should be against policy. Instead we enshrine in policy that you shouldn't be bringing this to AN/I unless you yourself are spotless. It's a shame and at least in the real world our laws have been changed to prevent such defense. Wikipedia however has not been so advanced.Camelbinky (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Very disappointing to see no actions has been taken yet on the concerns raised by a long time editor like myself. Not sure what type of community can run smoothly when concerns of this nature are not addressed on the spot. We spend lots of time and effort trying to have a collaborative environment and even set out policies to guide us all. Editors have an expectation of being able to work and voice an opinion without being insulted or posts deleted. I find it discouraging that the admin community does not take things of this nature seriously despite all the concerns raised about theses problems as of late. Moxy (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've argued for the past year, how the administrative system seems to have changed. It all depends on who they want to keep tabs on the most. If it's not so blatantly obvious it's someone who is INTENTIONALLY doing harm, then they'll act. but lately, ANI has been moving very sluggish. i brought up a topic of edit war three times over something an editor had no consensus. and although, it is claimed to be an offense of temporary block. It has never been addressed.Lucia Black (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not up to speed on all the admins - but do have a question - do we still have admins that were here 6 or 7 years ago? There was a time that things of this nature were handled with hast and gusto. I think all the badgering (hate posts) admins have had as of late may have cause many to question their actions and leads to no action being taken at all sometimes. Us normal editors seem to be left in the wind trying to deal with all the incivility that has gotten out of control in the past few years. -- Moxy (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason that no one has taken up your ridiculous request to block me Moxy is because I have not been uncivil to you; speaking bluntly and frankly are not the same as being uncivil at all. Most people (including me) when they realise that another editor finds them grossly irritating do their best to stay away from them - they do not pursue them around the project commenting and wanting absurd changes to their edits - especially when those pages are about subjects on which they know nothing. I could say that goes for Mabbitt too. Now as I have told you before, for your own sake, it would be a good idea for you to find something productive to do and put your silly vendetta aside. There are millions of terrible Wiki-pages and stubs desperate for your earnest attention - I suggest you go and find them and leave perfectly good GAs alone, that way you won't be making a fool of yourself here.  Giano  06:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be right no one cares about your odd behavior and the way you conduct yourself. As for making a fool of my self - I disagree we all here can see that your not up to par when it come to your interaction skills. I can only hope in the future as you become an adult and enter the real world you will come to understand how to communicate with your peers and those that disagree with you. Surprised I did not even get a sorry - the youth of today simply have no manners. I also hope this does not embolden you and others to not give a shit and keep being uncivil. -- Moxy (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Where have you got this strange idea from that Giano is a youth? And why in the context of your complaint do you consider it acceptable for you to make such personal remarks? Eric Corbett 10:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• The destructiveness of those pursuing the technophile line in the infobox wars against those who build content cannot be overstated. Re the OP question ("I am not sure how to proceed with the editor User:Giano"), the answer is to leave them alone. If you notice Giano damaging an article or driving off content builders, please post at ANI, but until then, just drop the matter. Who knows, perhaps WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes will resolve the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Ahem, I'd advise Moxy to drop the stick. Otherwise I may have to bring up evidence about a certain editor logging out to attack others anonymously back in April. This particular guy used his IP address (a Canadian one, no less) so he could make up a new identity and pretend to be an "ex-Wikipedian" who had been treated so badly he had had to leave the whole project. Unfortunately, said editor failed to disguise some very striking stylistic quirks, making identification rather easy. In fact, the whole attempt was so laughably bad and immature that I and another editor decided not to seek any admin action at the time. However, circumstances can change... --Folantin (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Great just great - an old editor come here with some concerns about behavior and gets threaten by those hes asking for assistance from. Great work guys just great. This whole process has been very eye opening.-- Moxy (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, it wasn't an old editor, it was a certain user pretending to be an old editor. As you probably remember. --Folantin (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and you should probably familiarise yourself with WP:BOOMERANG before brinnging complaints to ANI. --Folantin (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I see Giano has a huge group of friends willing to stick up for him at every turn. There is simply noting a lone content editor that does not engage in Wikipedia friendships can do here. I simply dont have the network of friends to help as he does. -- Moxy (talk)

Give it a rest. --Folantin (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Slavić

Slavić (talk · contribs) has thrown yet another hissy fit at Talk:Bulcsú László, IMO proving they're not here to build an encyclopedia - they seem to have an agenda in promoting the subject of that article and when people call them out on these fringe views, they respond with assorted insults. I gave them the benefit of the doubt in June when they re-created the article deleted after AfD, but it only led to a civility block enforced by myself. Today they started pushing their POV again, I was less patient but I again tried to reason with them on Talk, but it was apparently just delaying the inevitable - they still treated the other editors with nationalist slurs in their last talk page post.

Note also that the same person has already been blocked on the Croatian Wikipedia for pushing the same agenda. This is almost amusing - the Croatian wiki editors have engaged in a public feud with the English wiki editors over the Croatian language issue, and yet Slavić has managed to alienate both. We might need a new kind of an anti-barnstar for this kind of a feat.

So, would another admin please wield the axe the second time so that I don't have to. Thanks in advance. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indef. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive800#Slavić for some more background. I agree this is a case of WP:NOTHERE: combination of obvious tendentious agenda, frequent personal attacks and a deliberately impenetrable idiosyncratic style of talkpage contributions that makes constructive collaboration with him near-impossible. This [2] latest affectation of a "purist" mangled English really was the straw that broke the camel's back. (Seriously, "does not havest a clue", from an editor who prides himself of his linguistic achievements, deserves a block for mangling English grammar if nothing else.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons and Talk:Morgellons

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For the past couple of months or so we have had continuous problems at Morgellons and Talk:Morgellons. Most of these problems have been caused by tenditious editing by two users, User:Drgao and to a lesser extent, User:Erythema. They have repeatedly attempted to add low quality primary fringe studies to this medical article rather than secondary sources. There are numerous examples on the talk page, including this one [3] which is now in the archives (which, as an aside, gives a good indication of how long this has gone on). Many of us have explained WP:MEDRS and countless other policies to both of them, to no avail. Drgao has been asked, on his talk page to avoid personal attacks, to avoid commenting on editors and instead to comment on content, again to no avail [4]. Finally, User:Zad68 took the issue to WP:DRN [[5]. A clear decision was reached at DRN and the sources were deemed inappropriate. However, yesterday Drgao took these same sources to WP:RSN [6]. When this was done Drgao did not inform other parties to the DRN process that (s)he was doing this, so Zad68 let others know. Drgao then complained that Zad68 was stalking him/her and continued beating the dead horse of these unreliable sources [7]. I am asking that both Drgao and Erythema be topic banned from Morgellons and related articles. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck is grossly misrepresenting the situation here. I was entitled to submit my inquiry to the WP:RSN page, because as far as I understand, the sources in question were only deemed unreliable by the DRN for the Morgellons article, but not deemed unreliable in general. Therefore, since I was considering using these sources in other Wikipedia articles, I wanted to get an opinion on their general reliability.

So Dbrodbeck is grossly misrepresents the situation when he says I was "beating the dead horse of these unreliable sources". My WP:RSN inquiry was legitimate. And since my intention was to use these sources in unrelated articles, there would be no particular requirement to inform the editors at the Morgellons article. Furthermore, since I have found these editors to be quite adversarial towards my suggestions, I was hoping to leave these people behind, but to no avail. In fact, their group presence at my WP:RSN inquiry only served to derail that inquiry. I suggest that they need not have derailed that inquiry, and could have helped me instead, but they chose not to.

Dbrodbeck and other editors at the Morgellons article have been less than helpful in my dealings with them. For example, these editors decided that certain peer-reviewed sources were unreliable, but they would not explain to me their decision process as to why these sources were unreliable, just telling me that only they are properly able to interpret Wikipedia guidelines, as if there is some black art to such interpretation, only known to a special few. I am fully familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, but apparently, according to these editors, there is a special way to interpret Wikipedia guidelines that I don't know, or am not privy to, but Dbrodbeck and other editors at the Morgellons article are privy to. Each time I asked these editors to clarify for me their decision process as to why these sources were unreliable, they failed to provide any explanation, other than saying that only they know how to interpret Wikipedia guidelines, and I don't. I found this behavior condescending. I also found it worrying that the process of determining whether a source is reliable is so open to interpretation, with these editors' interpretations being superior to mine (or so they told me).

Even in the DRN decision (which I am honor bound to comply with, and I do so comply), the sources were deemed unreliable, but without any details being given on the decision process. I do not contest the DRN decision, because I agreed to comply, and I keep to my word; but it does seem strange to me how editors can just decide that a source is unreliable, without quoting any specific Wikipedia guidelines on which the decision is based. My view is that more transparency in the decision process in determining reliable sources would be a good thing, and would help prevent disputes like this one. Disputes arise when editors say that "only we know how to interpret Wikipedia guidelines, but you do not". More transparency is required to prevent such condescending remarks and the disputes that ensue from them. Drgao (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

DEADHORSE, IDHT 198.199.134.100 (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

See this conversation Drgao (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban, but on all medical articles, as an involved editor. This editor (Drgao) has been a huge time sink, and a distraction to multiple WP:MED editors from content creation through their tendentious WP:IDHT behavior. Despite multiple attempts by multiple editors, they have shown no understanding of the issues involved, specifically correct application of WP:MEDRS. As they have expressed a desire to use the same bad sources in other medical articles (just yesterday in their posting on WP:RSN), it is necessary to topic ban them from medical articles to stop the disruption until they can show an understanding of how our sourcing guidelines work, and can work collaboratively. Yobol (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all articles related to medicine for user:Drgao. This user have persistantly refused to abide by a wide range of WP policies, including WP:MEDRS, and this problematic behavior is likely to occur not only on articles directly related to Morgellons disease, but to any other topic related to medicine. The length and intensity of his attempts to introduced unrelaibly sourced material into the article, coupled with his persistant tendentious and disruptive editting and dead horse argumentation, make it reasonable to assume that this behavior will continue both on the Morgellons article and elsewhere. Yesterday, I warned user:Drgao several times myself about numerous violations of both our content and our sourcing policies and guidelines, as several other editors had regularly been also warning him for the same for the past two months. Administrator user:MastCell also told him that his "tendentiousness is becoming a major drain on the time and goodwill of other constructive editors" and that he would block him "for persistent tendentious and disruptive editing, in order to enable other editors to improve the article constructively and in an environment free of disruption." The editors responses indicated that he has numerous fundamental misunderstandings of what WP is and how it works, and has no intention of modifying his uncollaborative behavior, and indeed had plans on using unerliable sources in other articles as well. As such, he is incompetant to edit productively on any article where strict adherence to WP:MEDRS is expected. Would support a total community ban for this editor until he can reassure the community that he will edit in compliance with WP content and behavioral policies and guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Comment: reserving judgement on User:Erythema until I examine the evidence more fully. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Question. On what specific evidence is Dbrodbeck's suggested topic ban for User:Erythema based? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think [8] and [9] as well as [10] and [11] show a lack of understanding of our medical article sourcing requirements. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Erythema seems to have only made one post [12] since the dispute resolution process closed a week ago. While this post might well be seen as argumentative, I'd say that in of itself it wouldn't justify a block. I'd suggest that it might be best to give Erythema the benefit of the doubt, and rather than block, warn him/her that future conduct will be under close scrutiny, and that continuing as before isn't an option. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. The caveat about future conduct is important. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban of Drgao (I am an involved editor). I think this version of the user's page illustrates a number of the problems, including this illustrative quote: OK, I will try to avoid ad hominem strikes, and battle only in the arena of the actual subject matter. [13]. -- Scray (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban for user:Drgao on all articles related to medicine. (I've been marginally involved) It seems self-evident that Drago is unwilling to accept the clear consensus over sources, and likewise unwilling to accept the broader principles regarding medical sourcing - his/her suggestion at WP:RSN that the rejected sources might be appropriately used elsewhere [14] is about as clear evidence of tendetiousness as one could get. Enough is enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see my comment above for why I thought my WP:RSN inquiry was legitimate. I understood that source reliability decisions only apply in the context of the article they were discussed in. So since I was considering using these sources in other articles, my WP:RSN inquiry should have been accepted and considered. Drgao (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block for both users. The Erythema account is abiding by the DRN resolution, but they're clearly a SPA and continue to demonstrate an inability to understand WP policies. The Drgao account is and will continue to be an enormous timesink and even continued to argue with the admin in RSN after being told that doing so would lead to a block; I just don't see a personality like that as being able to maintain a relationship with the WP community that enriches either the community or the user. I'm the IP user 198.199.134.100 posting from home; I usually edit from work. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban for Drgao, for all the reasons Dbrodbeck outlined above. This user has shown willful disregard for Wikipedia policies on sources, agreed to abide by arbitration and then violated that agreement, repeatedly engaged in personal attacks, and has asserted ownership rights on this article. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral on block for Erythema. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef WP:MEDICINE topic ban for Drgao (as involved editor) - this would include all articles in WP:MEDICINE scope, biomedical content in all other articles, and associated discussion on Talk pages. What was brought to light at the DRN discussion and the following discussion at Talk:Morgellons was Drgao's inability or unwillingness to understand and apply WP:MEDRS, the biomedical content sourcing guideline, in line with consensus. The DRN discussion listed twelve editors having from modest to extensive editing experience who were able to review the sources against the WP:MEDRS guideline and didn't have trouble all coming to the same conclusion about them: they are not reliable for sourcing biomedical claims. TransporterMan was able to do the same thing without difficulty. At Drgao's RSN discussion, AndyTheGrump and Dominus Vobisdu didn't find a problem with it. Instead of pausing to consider that his/her own interpretation and application of WP:MEDRS might be problematic, Drgao continues to question whether it's everyone else who's got it wrong, demanding repeatedly that WP:MEDRS be explained again and again, despite that fact that Talk:Morgellons is full of hundreds of kilobytes of futile attempts by many different editors to explain it, with only WP:IDHT in response. Further tendentious editing is evidenced by Drgao's continuation of discussing the exact same thing that the DRN participants committed not to discuss after its conclusion - the WP:MEDRS fitness of the exact same sources - with a stated desire to use them in other articles. Because the issue is not with Morgellons in particular but with Drgao's understanding and acceptance of Wikipedia's biomedical sourcing guideline, the topic ban should be WP:MEDICINE-scope content. Regarding Erythema, there's not enough evidence to recommend a sanction at this time. Zad68 19:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see my comment above for why I thought my WP:RSN inquiry was legitimate. I understood that source reliability decisions only apply in the context of the article they were discussed in. So since I was considering using these sources in other articles, my WP:RSN inquiry should have been accepted and considered. Drgao (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral I express no opinion either for or against the actions proposed here, but am available to answer any questions which any closer or administrator might wish to ask about the prior proceedings in which I was involved as a neutral party. (I may be mostly offline from about 22:00 UTC today through about 13:00 UTC on July 29, so if a quicker answer is needed, you might give me a heads up by email.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Drgao. (No comment on Erythema.) When an editor responds to a consensus at RSN with the assertion that other editors are telling lies and are "just not honest enough" about Wikipedia's policies on reliable sourcing, it throws up a big red flag. It appears, based on the information above, that this is an ongoing, persistent, and otherwise intractable IDHT problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Drgao nor Erythema have done anything wrong. They simply have a more neutral opinion than the editors here who have ganged up on them. Sierraparis (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Experienced editors who review the situation for the first time have unanimously agreed that Drgao and Erythema are in the wrong here.

Would it be possible to also seek similar corrective action for Sierraparis or does a new ANI report need to be opened? Problematic editor at Talk:Morgellons, SPA, IDHT, etc, etc. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: Sierraparis account just claimed to not be here to edit, but as a "neutral journalist". 198.199.134.100 (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(involved admin) So, block Sierraparis per WP:NOTHERE? I don't think we're there yet, but, if he fails to rescind his comment that only editors who know Morgellons patients should edit, it should be considered. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

support (involved) medical top ban for Drgao (Btw, it looks like they've been involved in pushing the infectious etiology for conditions other than moregellons, and I don't know if the references are up to snuff their either). Erythema and Sierraparis haven't quite reached the threshold of tendentiousness required for a topic ban, but are rapidly heading in that direction, since neither seem to have any reason to be on wikipedia other than to argue that apparently all of wikipedia is biased against them. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I may be biased, but I think Drgao is doing a great job in improving the Morgellons article. Drgao (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban from medical articles, as use seems to be unable to comprehend or abide by WP:MEDRS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "OPPOSE" Drgao has much to contribute to the discussion of this article and there is no reason whatsoever for banning this editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sierraparis (talk • contribs) 04:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• — Sierraparis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support indefinite topic ban for all three users. The disruption and IDHT needs to stop. I'd even support a community imposed indefinite ban. There seems to be an inability to understand our most important policies. While we're at it, User:Sierraparis and User:Erythema need to be included in the topic ban. They are indistinguishable from twins/clones of Drgao. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban The distribution wastes a considerable amount of editor time, and the editor doesn't appear capable of getting the issues. This topic ban should not be lifted until the editor shows an understanding of policy, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban I've checked the Morgellons talk page & it's last two archives and note that user:Drgao is displaying continual disruptive IDHT behaviour. Suggest swift expansion of the ban if s/he takes this behaviour to other wp:FRINGEy medical matters. Currently Neutral on sanctioning user:Erythema. Now also Support indef topic ban for user:Erythema rgds 188.222.98.201 (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I believe that Erythema, Drgao, and Sierraparis have honestly tried to abide by WP policies and I still believe that the NPOV of this article could be greatly improved. However, I don't believe in beating a deadhorse, and I do not feel that anything will be achieved by trying to discuss this topic further when the majority of the editors are not receptive. If you feel that Erythema, Sierraparis and Drgao have not followed policy then copying the relevant sections of policy would have been helpful. Many times they have asked for more specific objective justification concerning rejection of their proposals and have been met with hostility or sarcastic comments rather than useful discussion. One example I can think of was something to the effect that "fair and balanced is not what we do here". Erythema (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

comment From the very beginning of when you & Drgao started to edit the talk page (late May) other editors repeatedly gave you links to the relevant policies and explained - again repeatedly - how those policies judged that the sources you were advocating were not suitable, and that your editing/talk page etiquette were failing to adhere to the communities norms of behaviour. The majority of 'hostility & sarcasm' was coming from user:Drgao and if some of the other editors were occasionally testy it was because of the abovementioned & amply evidenced tendentious editing. As for "We don't do fair and balanced here, read WP:UNDUE" This was in the context of the questionable reliability of your supporting sources and was discussed in Archive 9 here. 188.222.98.201 (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. This is further evidence that all three editors (if they are separable in any manner....) still, even now, fail to understand our policies. They have been provided plenty of explanations and links to read. They are not suited for editing here at all, so now I support a total ban from Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Because of this website(s) widespread use by million of people I may refer this information to the FBI in regard to how their information is being used to mislead people". Talk:Homosexuality#Violence against Gays and Lesbians from User: Ranleewright.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you expect a person interested in truth to do, the edits to entry and its subsections of this page are going further away from the truth everyday, it is misleading the public who use Wikipedia, a public who feels it is a unbiased resource? I have not as yet went to the step of sending copies of the information to the FBI or other outside organizations, that is why I said I may refer. Are you so determined to mislead and be biased that you would have me blocked or removed from Wikipedia? This further proves you want no criticism of your edits on this resource, your not interested in improving your wording in regard to the references, this is a very sad outcome for Wikipedia as far as use and being unbiased. Ranleewright (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

These are valid concerns / issues I wish to draw and direct attention to, misleading or information skirting falsehood should not be allowed to remain on Wikipedia if you want it to be regarded as well regarded resource for the public in general as an encyclopedia and such. Now if you have no concern in regard to the information being unbiased and non-misleading then go for it but put a disclaimer on each page to show that is the fact of the matter. Ranleewright (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• The statement by Ranleewright is not a legal threat. The material is apparently sourced to an FBI report, and the user is saying that they would report that the report is being miscited. That said, the comments by Ranleewright strike me as, at best, unhelpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is a simple content dispute. But accusing other editors of misleading the public is uncivil behaviour and it will not contribute to the resolution of any outstanding issues. -- Taroaldo ✉ 23:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think is more than a content dispute. The editor appears to have an agenda.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If Ranleewright was truly interested in improving wording in regard to references, one might expect that as a first step, they may have responded or passed some comment on the 3 suggestions I made on the article talk page in which I indeed attempted to improve the wording. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed, Bbb23. Only meant insofar as the ANI report goes, there does not appear to be a legal threat. The problem remains with the content...and certain conduct. Taroaldo ✉ 23:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I respect Bbb23's opinion on this. I feel that the wording when looked at with the previous comment: "I hold forth no hope that this will be corrected or mitigated because this seems to be Wikipedia's purpose to spread biased and misleading material to the general public, even allowing pornographic material displaying sexual themes, relations and organs to underage children without restriction, this is illegal in every other form of media." makes it appear that the intent is a legal matter of finding Wikipedia liable for its content and an accusation of a misuse of an Official US Government agency. This seems a borderline legal threat and could be interpreted to mean that they intend to seek legal action. I feel the issue can be left as is, unless the editor continues to make threats of off Wiki action.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This, as quoted by the OP here, does indeed qualify as a legal threat: "You better fix this, or I'm calling the FBI." The rest of his posts are loaded with accusations of the "conspiracy theory" type. Certainly that SPA has an agenda, though it's not clear just what that agenda is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That was my basic, original thought.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note - This is why it is helpful to add all the relevant diffs at the beginning of the discussion. Still, "calling the FBI" does not constitute a threat of litigation. WP:LEGAL -- Taroaldo ✉ 00:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It does constitute a "Perceived legal threat". The language was meant to create a chill effect and stop editing and intimidate editors. I'm back to calling this enough of a legal threat that intervention may be needed for prevention as the editor is making it clear they intend some action.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That point seems to come up here from time to time. It's not the specific nature of the threat that forbids it - it's the attempt to intimidate editors. That's why threatening to call the FBI is every bit as much a "legal threat" as threatening to call Dewey, Cheatham and Howe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The statement is, indeed, intended to chill the discussion and to get their way in the argument. As such, I believe it is a clear legal threat, in violation of WP:NLT (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

While our interpretations of WP:LEGAL may differ slightly, I concur that contributions in the talk page appear to be an attempt to intimidate or bully other editors. I think most of us can probably agree that some kind of action would be appropriate in this case. Taroaldo ✉ 01:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I'm with Bbb here. I normally consider 'I will report you to some LEO' claims as in NLT territory since they have the same chilling effect but in this case as the comment appears to be 'I will report you to some LEO because it's their source you're misusing' not 'I will report you to some LEO for criminal investigation', I don't think this is auite in NLT territory. That said, I would discourage further comments of this nature as it does risk having the same chilling effect because we are ultimately talking about a LEO and it's unlikely to help matters. Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

No, exactly what they are saying is: "Submit to my moral judgment that this article violates pornography laws by depicting relations between same sex couples or I will contact the FBI to begin a legal battle to make Wikipedia liable for the content. THAT is what they are saying.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Truth painful and is intimidating and bullying, hmmmm that sounds unreasonable to me. You can not get consensus when individuals for what ever reason choose not look at the independent facts of a matter. Just the same who ever has the power to stifle freedom of speech exercise it, the power always makes right I guess. Ranleewright (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Here look at the conversation more closely: Violence against Gays and Lesbians[edit] Ranleewright (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC) (Copyright/Attribution violation removed)--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Two things you should read: WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, Wikipedia:Free speech. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Make that three because they need to read our terms of use it seems as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

What gives? Copyright/attribution violation when it was a group of posts between me and several other editors, how could that be so, are you making up rules as you go? What are you doing deleting my posts, is that not a violation of freedom of speech? Are you disrespecting me because I'm new to this forum or are you bulling me? Ranleewright (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

WE can violate your 'free speech' all we like here. Or rather, you don't have any right to 'free speech' on Wikipedia, any more than anyone else does - see Wikipedia:Free speech. As for removing the huge chunk of text you copy-pasted here, whether it was a copyright violation to do so or not (it might be, due to lack of proper attribution, but I'm no lawyer..), it shouldn't have been pasted anyway. Either post a link, or at least tell us where it is - filling the page with walls of copy-pasted text is disruptive and unnecessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You may post only your own text without the need to attribute others. However, if you copy text from one place to another within Wikipedia that belongs to other contributors you are required to give attribution to all those who's work you copy. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. But, the original post I made already has a link to the discussion so copy pasting that entire chunk was very disruptive.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

So your saying it is a copyright violation to copy or link information in any form from one place to another in the entries or in the talk forums unless it is you. If it is not you then it is disruptive, in violation and unnecessary. No one has any right to free speech on here but you, you can move, delete, rewrite, block, ever what you want to do, you have the freedom to do that but no one else does. You don't want anyone to see what has really been posted so you obscure it or delete it. Sounds strongly of communism in some form to me. Ranleewright (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what the founder of Wikipedia would think about a statement like that? Ranleewright (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not to say that the Wikimedia Foundation intends to extensively exercise that legal right, if it can be avoided. Wikipedia welcomes all constructive contributors, and is dedicated to assuming good faith with those here to contribute constructively and assist in helping expand access to the sum of human knowledge. I have given constructive cpmtrobitions and have done all in good faith to assist in helping expand human knowledge, but have been blocked, ridiculed to an extent and bullied. The information I put forth was from the FBI website that contains the reports that were used. Also the edits I made were from the same source word for word in some cases to clarify the information being used in the entry, but no that was not good enough. Ranleewright (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how someone threatening to call the FBI in can fairly accuse others of 'bullying'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

--Amadscientist AndyTheGrump Is abusing their powers as administrators on Wikipedia, I have given constructive contributions and have done all in good faith to assist in helping expand human knowledge, but have been blocked, ridiculed to an extent and bullied when all I have done is put forth factual information from the same sources / reports as in some of the entries on Wikipedia. In this way they are causing the information in these entries to misrepresent the statistics, percentages and facts put forth in these reports. This seems to be contrary to what Wikipedia should represent. Ranleewright (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. Does this not include administrators??? Ranleewright (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. I never claimed to be one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Then who is acting like one and deleting some of the stuff I put up? Who says they are going to block me on here? Ranleewright (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Also why are you AndyTheGrump changing my edits on entries when I put up the sources for those edits? Ranleewright (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"why are you AndyTheGrump changing my edits on entries when I put up the sources for those edits"? What exactly are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Before you do anything else, you need to remove and disavow your threat to contact the FBI, or you will be blocked from editing here - guaranteed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

So now we go past bullying and have the threats, I have used Wikipedia as a resource since 2007 and I get threats for my loyalty. Like I posted before, who ever has the power to stifle freedom of speech exercise it, the power always makes right I guess, your doing the same thing you say your fighting against. Ranleewright (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The threats came from you. Withdraw them. Or expect to be prevented from making further threats. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead, I don't make threats. Ranleewright (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Well? Ranleewright (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Come on abuse me AndyTheGrump, come on ol powerful one??? Whats going on nothing is happening? Ranleewright (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Enough of this unproductive WP:TE nonsense. Issue a block and be done with it. Taroaldo ✉ 08:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes issue a block don't even consider the truth, facts and be done with it, break all the grand words of Wikipedia,Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with cited external sources, and neutrally presented, the roots on what it is based, show your true colors, prove what you are. Ranleewright (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

See  • above. Taroaldo ✉ 08:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Something isn't right here. I think it's true to say that in the thread on the article talk page, I was the only editor who attempted (repeatedly) to incorporate and address Ranleewright's concerns, yet it seemed to be me who Ranleewright chose to ignore. Ranleewright recently edited the article (see here) to include a note which clarified the FBI's definition of a victim, then afterwards on the talk page stated that "the edit I made to the entry clears up the meaning of the percentages referenced in the FBI report" (see here). Yet the day before on the talk page I had explicitly suggested doing exactly the same thing (see here) - note my sentence "Maybe a footnote could also be added after the use of "victims", explaining the FBI definition of that term" - but Ranleewright's reaction was to completely ignore me and instead get on a soapbox (see here). Maybe this was pure oversight, but a similar thing has happened on this page; if people look higher up, they can see I again referred to the 3 suggestions I had made to change the wording in the article. Does Ranleewright state that they hadn't seen those, and ask me to highlight them? No, I am completely ignored again, whereas Ranleewright proves quite capable of responding to other editors. I think that sometimes, for whatever reason, some people just like fighting. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• As far as the legal threat is concerned, I was not at first convinced as the threat was not credible. However, I find the argument that the editor's intent was to browbeat other editors compelling, and agree that WP:NLT was violated, in spite of the fact that the threat was not credible.

Furthermore, we have a major problem with WP:COMPETENCE here. The editor clearly has fundamental misconceptions about what WP is and how it works. While that is to be expected with a new account, it does not seem that the editor is amenable to improving their competence and constructively edit in a collaborative framework, based on their tendentious comments on the article talk pages and in this discussion. Mentoring and friendly advice are unlikely to be of any avail, as the editor's comments strongly indicate that he is WP:NOTHERE. Because it is reasonable to assume that disruptive and tendentious behavior will continue, an indefinite block would be the best option at this time. If, in the future, the editor can convince an adminitrator that they understand what WP is and how it works, and that they intend to edit productively and collaboratively in compliance with WP policies and guidelines, the account could be unblocked. Until then, this editor is "not ready for prime time". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

All one has to do is look at the editor's contributions list to see that he or she is WP:NOTHERE to help create an encyclopedia. This is clearly a POV-pushing SPA, and not a civil one at that. A block needs to be issued. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• The only comment I'm going to make about sanctions is I don't think the editor has done enough yet to warrant a block. He might deserve a final warning for his approach, but not a block. His edits are a mixture of various components. He actually makes some good points, but they are mixed up with a poor approach, some incompetence, and a hostile manner, particularly when challenged. In any event, I've made some comments as to content on the homosexuality talk page, taking into account some of the points that Ranleewright made, as well as other problems with the language we use in the article, which, in my view, is not fully supported by the source. That now makes me WP:INVOLVED, so I won't be the admin who takes action against Ranleewright, if any action is justified. By the way, to get a fuller picture of Ranleewright, editors might want to look at his edits to the Vegetarianism talk page. His comments there are sometimes odd, but they are less controversial and more human. Please remember that there are people behind these accounts, and we need to be sensitive to that. I'm not saying that justifies persistent disruption, and for all I know he may be a sock, but let's not be too blood-thirsty at this point. He's made only a few article edits so far, all of which have been poor, but none of which has been vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any of the editors calling for a block are "blood-thirsty", and frankly, it's a blatant violation of WP:AGF on your part to say so. Nipping in the bud what is certain to be continued disruption is a legitimate use of a block so that other editors can edit in peace. Remember, they are people, too, and don't deserve to be subjected to hostility and aggression. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Indef block Legal threats, lack of competence, not here to build an encyclopedia, disruption and "I don't here you".--Amadscientist (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• (Uninvolved, non-admin comment) Let's see. Ranleewright's very first post at Talk:Homosexuality was a blatant violation of WP:AGF, alleging "intentional misrepresentation" of the source [my emphasis], and their subsequent posts strongly indicated a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Despite more than one editor's attempts to take Ranleewright seriously and address the substance of the content question they raised, Ranleewright clearly preferred to engage in unconstructive discussion, reiterating the baseless allegation of their first post, calling a good-faith editor's comments "moot and argumentative and suggesting the article be "removed", accusing other editors of wanting to hide "the truth", accusing the article's writers of being "biased", issued the threats that led to this ANI report being filed, and then pointily made an edit they knew would be reverted rather than seeking consensus.

  Bbb23 may be right that there's not enough there for a block just yet, but unless Ranleewright makes a serious effort to assume good faith and "play nicely", it's pretty clear that a block is in the future. Up to y'all how much time is spent on discussing the problem before dealing with it. Rivertorch (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I try hard to work with difficult editors to find ways to understand their concerns and address them, work with them and attempt some manner of retention of them as contributors. I tend to be like Bbb23 and not necessarily look to block and even look at the overall picture. But, this time Bbb23 is wrong. There is clearly enough to block the editor at this time and their main effort here is to attack a controversial article, rile up its editors and disrupt the project. The editor lacks the competence to work here, and even when directed to information to explain the simplest rules here, such as attribution, they use it as further attacks. Sure, I find the opinion that tying up a man to a fence and beating them to death for their sexual preference as being nothing but sensationalism and gossip to be disturbing, but it is far more telling about their lack of neutrality and the direction they are insisting the article take. Mathew Sheppard is a perfect example of violence against the LGBT community, but the editor is too biased against homosexuality to see that. I have to wonder if the editor even has the maturity to work here, let alone the competence.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Rivertorch is right, it's a matter of how long, not if. This user's combativeness has convinced me to block until the threat is withdrawn, and this will also serve as a cooldown period for a combative editor. Gamaliel (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good call. Looking at Ranleewright's contributions as linked by Rivertorch, it was clear to me that the user was here to push an agenda rather than build an encyclopedia in a collaborative manner. CtP (t • c) 18:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Until the threat(s) are withdrawn, it should be block, and mentorship. Or if all else fails, indefinite block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.60.157 (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Contrary to some opinion, I think he is here to build an encyclopedia - I simply think he believes that ref's must be used his way to support his POV, "or else". The block for NLT is valid, and can be removed as per process. Of course, I half expect to see evasion instead, which opens up a whole different can'o'worms (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problematic editing by TomPointTwo

I know about all the civility enforcement difficulties etc. and for sure I have no intention to stir up any unnecessary drama but I started a modest thread at Talk:Steve King warning editors there about breaching 3RR during a recent spate of edit-warring. The thread is not long and anyone interested can read it to get the full picture. To cut the story short, I cautioned TomPointTwo about making unhelpful remarks which could provoke another user and I got this response: I found them to be helpful as a motherfucker. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC) with an edit-summary feels good man. I reverted per WP:NOTFORUM but TomPointTwo keeps edit-warring his reply into the talkpage, escalating with attacking edit-summaries such as: (Censorship! Fascism! Your subjective deletion of my contribution will not stand! My critical evaluations of previous material is not in violation of WP:TPNO. Read it, son.). I don't find this acceptable. I ask that an admin redact that reply and take any further action as they deem appropriate. In addition TomPointTwo used edit-summaries like (Undid revision 566113825 by MilesMoney (talk) Actually now that you're up against 3RR you can eat it.) trying to bait his opponent during the edit-war at Steve King in which he arrived at 3RR himself but did not seem to recognise it as shown from this discussion at RFPP: [15] and this response at 3RRN: [16]. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I found my previous talk page comments to be helpful. Helpful as a motherfucker, in fact. My expression of 3RR angst (actually 5RR by that point) was succinct and honest. Suckhonest, maybe. Context can be found at the Steve King Talk page, the 3RR noticeboard and the additional entry Dr K made to the edit war noticeboard. Aside from that I don't have a ton to add. I do so hope my contributions are not interpreted as anything less than "professional" or of the super serious business required of participants here. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• He has now resorted to personal attacks against me at 3RRN: [17]. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm confused. Are you crying about my conjecture that you feel dumb? TomPointTwo (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Carrying on the battle here is not wise. I suggest you stop. Taroaldo ✉ 09:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The formatting here is a mess, and not of your doing. Whom are you addressing? TomPointTwo (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• The situation has been presented and I think it would be best if you both would step back until some outside input has been provided. Carrying on arguments in ANI is not constructive. Also, TomPointTwo, you seem to have a sharp sense of humour (if I have been interpreting some of your comments correctly). But, since this is not being welcomed by the other involved editor, it would be appropriate to tone it right down. What may appear as humourous comments to you appear as uncivil comments to others eg: "[a]re you crying about my conjecture that you feel dumb?" -- Taroaldo ✉ 09:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• You're an affably charitable sort. TomPointTwo (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Outside look

As an outsider that has not dug in to the whole problem yet, I must say I dont like TomPointTwo language at all. I suggest you start being polite and write with a friendly tone. It is better for everyone, because it is more civil to read, and people may judge you differently if you use another language. I dont feel like the choice of words is good etiguette, so at least consider reading WP:ETIQ. QED237 (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm simply incapable of responding to that in a way that isn't despicably petty as you no doubt speak my language better than I speak yours. Or so I hope. In the mean time I do very much hope you find others whose language is more in tune with your sensibilities. TomPointTwo (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you capable of responding in a way that does not include sarcasm, insults, battleground behaviour, or indeed can you respond in any manner that respects the community nature of this project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I am, as repeatedly demonstrated by my edit history. I've also reached that point where I'm totally unconcerned for my wiki-cred and treat the absurd in kind. Self-aggrandizing, self-appointed, fussy wiki bureaucrats and people who want to cite the Colbert Show in a BLP can pretty much go pound sand. TomPointTwo (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I woke up to see an edit summary which was inappropriate, and responded to TomPointTwo at their talk page. That occurred before I saw the ANI thread and before I saw the subsequent comments of TomPointTwo. Because I have edited the article, and commented on the content issues, I feel uncomfortable taking admin actions, but we need to send a clear message that the language of TomPointTwo is not acceptable. I urge a warning that further such language will be grounds for an immediate block. Coerced apologies aren't worth much, so I don't wish to coerce one, but I hope TomPointTwo considers one. While it is clear that MilesMoney's style can be exasperating, the editor is new, and unfamiliar with our guidelines, so we can be firm, but do not need to be insulting. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've fully protected Steve King for three days, and left messages on TomPointTwo's and MilesMoney's talk pages. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll tone it down, there isn't much left to get up about anyway. I'm unsure exactly what it is you want me to apologize for. For being rude to a pain in the ass newbie who was shiting all over a BLP? Or hurting Dr. K's feelings and not deferring to his stern finger wagging? In all seriousness though, if my disregard for the institutional faux mutual regard around here has caused this much hyper-ventilating then people will either put on their big kid pants, and move on or they'll serve my up some block that doesn't much affect me anyway so they can feel better about that intolerable Tom jerk on the Steve King article. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I was watching the RFPP thread with growing incredulity; TomPointTwo was behaving bizarrely, and neither user seemed to understand what the other was saying, creating a vicious circle. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Your evaluation is without merit regarding my replies at RFPP. I was replying directly to TomPointTwo's comments and he was shifting the replies ever so slightly to create the conundrum that you see there. He exhibited exactly the same attitude at 3RRN where he never admitted to edit-warring despite multiple detailed explanations from my part and made multiple false statements about my evaluation of his behaviour as having reached 3RR as you can see from the link here. At 3RRN I had to tell him not to put words in my mouth due his false statements about me. He also repeated multiple times that I had to "read WP:3RR" when I told him that he was also edit-warring and in one of his replies he even called me a clever little wordsmith, repeated that "I had to read WP:3RR" and implied that I was "dumb"; all for telling him that he was responsible for edit-warring. At both 3RRN and RFPP he feigned misunderstanding of my replies and I think that kind of reaction from TomPointTwo is some short of defence mechanism when he does not want to face his responsibility. At RFPP he became patronising and insisted multiple times that I made an error by reporting there. In one of his replies he patronisingly implies that "I had it bacwards" by not filing a single report at 3RRN only for his perceived opponent with a patronising edit-summary re Dr. K: Oh, I'll do it then implying that I filed the wrong report. In another patronising reply at RFPP when I told him that his newbie opponent was not warned about 3RR and thus any report about MilesMoney at 3RRN would not result in his block he sarcastically retorted that I was "a member of the cabal" with a sarcastic edit-summary: *Gasp*. All part of his strategy to shift the blame to his newbie opponent. It was his version of Who's on First? trying to evade his responsibility about the edit-war and ignore my clear comments about it. Either that or he has genuine trouble reading other editors' replies no matter how clear. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This is very troubling behavior, both here and on the article in question. Also there's fun incidents like calling another editor a liar in his recent edit history. Scrapping with a combative newbie is one thing, but his responses to Dr. K. and QED237 are uncalled for. I'm tempted to block, but that might only encourage anti-social behavior. I think perhaps a better solution would be to topic ban him from this particular article for the duration of this particular editing conflict while more level-headed editors sort it out. Gamaliel (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I called him a liar because he was transparently full of shit. I could have pretended we didn't all know he was transparently full of shit and done the phony, passive aggressive "I'm going to assume good faith here" routine but that's incredibly taxing. And old. I'm unsure what you're angling for in a topic ban, I almost never edit Steve King's page, I don't even remember why it' on my watchlist. I just saw a new, pushy editor doing something belligerently stupid so I popped in to let him know. If it would make you feel better, like you've "done something" about all of whatever this is then have at it. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

One of his edit summaries here: "I have some tissues left over here. BAWWW party, my place?" Assuming he isn't a troll, I would also consider his earlier comments on this thread ("totally unconcerned for my wiki-cred", "fussy wiki bureaucrats [...] can pretty much go pound sand") an admission that this behavior isn't going to stop. I support a block. ProtossPylon 20:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. He is on a campaign of self-righteousness and denigrates and belittles any comments concerning his personal attacks as well as his edit-warring behaviour and does not show any kind of sign that he understands the impact of his behaviour on a collaborative editing environment. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've been a super big meanie over the past 12 hours. And one time I called a liar a liar. I'm pretty sure I've insinuated a few editors are dealing with cognitive handicaps. If you go back far enough you might even find an instance or two where I have, without any proper perspective on our reverent air of community collaboration, told someone that their contributions were garbage. If I'm not blocked soon I could fly off the handle and, again, remove non-policy compliant garbage and even hurt someone's sense of self importance, or worse, their emotional well being. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes as TomPointTwo writes, if he is not blocked soon he could hurt the emotional well-being of other editors. If he does that, it will hurt our encyclopedia. I thus support a block. (NB I had an interaction with TomPointTwo in May 2011 here. (sdsds - talk) 23:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I initially supported only a topic ban, but based on the comments of other editors and his latest comments here, he's talked himself into a block. It's clear that discussion won't resolve the issue. He clearly understands the problem, but he is clearly determined to not only disregard the issue, but exacerbate the problem as much as he can, so this is a matter of merely self-fulfilling prophecy. And based on what I'm interpreting as his assent above, I don't see why we shouldn't also place a topic ban on him for this article for the duration of this current editing conflict. I'm calling it a night, so if there is consensus here for an unblock or changing the block, you need not contact me first. Gamaliel (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The block seems a sensible move given the latest comments. I'm not so sure about the topic ban though - not the idea of a topic ban per se, but whether we have the authority to impose one. There hasn't been a community discussion leading to a ban, so I don't think we can impose a ban under that authority. Is the article in question under any form of discretionary sanctions? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Do we need them? If there is a consensus here for such a ban, that should be sufficient. Given his assent, I thought there was no harm in imposing one. If consensus here disagrees, I have no problem lifting it. Gamaliel (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

39.44.26.215

I told him that his edits were reverted on Shehla Raza ‎because he wrote Urdu on it. I reverted as good faith edits and warned him with {{subst:uw-test1}}. He then wrote on my talk page all these which just meant 'cut your mother'. Jianhui67 (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for userpage vandalism and personal attacks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat from User:Anarcocapitalista austriaco

Please see message posted by new user Anarcocapitalista austriaco here: [18]. – S. Rich (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've told him that if the threat isn't immediately removed I will block him indefinitely Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This might not be a legal threat. User:Anarcocapitalista austriaco says that a third person might sue Wikipedia. He doesn't claim to be or to represent this third person. Please account for the possibility that the user's message is a good-faith warning about someone else's threat to take legal action. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

He says " I am Huerta de Soto's close familiar and I believe he is very annoyed with the lies that are being written in wikipedia" A threat made on behalf of his friend is still a threat, and should be withdrawn. If we accept your argument, we might as well abandon the policy, along with any other incivility (Mr X thinks you are a %??!!ing ~**### because of what you put in the article, just thought I'd let you know that). I'll block him if the threat remains, I'm not splitting hairs on this, there is no valid reason for keeping intimidation active, whatever the source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't blocked yet because he has made no subsequent edits and may not have seen the message. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a threat made on behalf of a friend is still a threat. But my point is that this user never claimed to be speaking on this friend's behalf. If I were a new user who learned that someone I knew was about to sue Wikipedia for publishing false information about them, I might do exactly what this user is doing: I would first try to resolve the matter by removing the allegedly false information, and if my actions were reverted and called into question I would explain, perhaps with some desperation, that I was only trying to head off impending legal action. Of course I wouldn't be so rude about it, though not every new user is used to containing their indignation in the face of Wikipedia bureaucracy. I see the relevant policies and procedures have now been explained to them, so hopefully they will now understand what it is they need to do in order to get their corrections adopted. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Also it is possible the editor is not aware that if Jesús Huerta de Soto is upset about User:Specifico's editing he can see Wikipedia:BLP#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself. Conveying messages inferring threats to sue User:Specifico is not necessary. Since I'm involved in an ANI which touches on Specifico's editing in several articles, including this one, it might not be appropriate that I do it. User:Carolmooredc 12:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

[inserted] Interestingly, a check of new editor AA's diffs shows that much of the text which AA disputes is from edits contributed by user carolmooredc. SPECIFICO talk 13:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have notified the user. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If the user has claimed close connection to the person and is making edits and pushing for edits that are not correct then there is a case of potential conflict of interest too. The accounts only edit has been to this page + the claims of closeness to the person this could potentially be a single purpose account. The editor should probably be given more information on these policies too.  A m i t  웃   15:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Marcos Stupenengo, journalist, autobiography

Marcos Stupenengo is a minor journalist who has created a self-biography (CV like) both in this wiki and in the Spanish one. The Spanish version was already deleted (and as he was repeatedly creating the page again it was blocked forever). In this wiki he has been deleting Talk comments, removing the self-biography template. He doesn't seem to be very skilled as he always come from the same IP 207.38.225.26 (talk · contribs) (when he doesn't use the user Coconuto (talk · contribs), which is obviously him checking in Google).

The page in question is Marcos Stupenengo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Spanish deleted page: es:Marcos Stupenengo

It would be great if somebody could take a look a this issue. Thanks!

I first posted this here Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Marcos_Stupenengo.2C_journalist, but I got no reply.

Thanks!

niqueco ✍ 17:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• AfD discussion already initiated by a user, I don't think additional ANI action is needed.  A m i t  웃   18:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:81.107.158.116

I've come across this comment when I was going to leave Murry a message. I doubt I've ever seen anything as rude on the wiki. I note from the record that this user has already been blocked once. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of hoping somebody is going to look at this incident and agree with me. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The user claimed to be Harrybhoy67 in that message, and there are similar edits from that account. I've warned the editor (on the account's talk page) about BLP and verifiability - that's more of an issue than one incident of incivility. Peter James (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Request Indefinate Block on IP user: 62.7.90.195

Special:Contributions/62.7.90.195 This user has been blocked for vandalism as they keep removing bits from articles which involve controversy, accidents or incidents on certain rollercoasters. The two rollercoasters they have done this on so far belong to Alton Towers. I did a quick bit of research and it is a definite conflict of interests. [19] reveals IP address belongs to Merlin Entertainment who own the theme park who's articles this IP address keeps editing. The block imposed on the user is only for 31 hours but I would suggest an indefinite ban is more appropriate. The user has made no valuable edits to wikipedia, only these C.O.I. vandalisms.

Today this user is removing (covering up?) bits about controversy and accidents on articles about Alton Towers... Merlin own a lot of theme parks and attractions in the UK, including Alton Towers, Chessington World of Adventures, Thorpe Park, Madame Tussauds, Sea Life Centres, The London and Edinburgh Dungeons, Seal Sanctuaries, Warwick Castle, the London Eye and Legoland... -the potential for more is enormous.

I think nip it in the bud and block the IP indefinitely. It shows this sort of editing is not welcome on wikipedia. -- Rushton2010 (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The edits are disruptive, but not vandalism. The main problem is lack of discussion or explanation of the edits. Some of the information removed belongs in the article, but other parts probably don't. Peter James (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Deliberately removing valid and fully referenced information is vandalism. Even more so with the worrying C.O.I. and the fact it was the bits about incidents and accidents that was being removed.

The question is not whether it constitutes vandalism- The user is already blocked for it being vandalism. This is about getting that block increased to stop it happening again. The last time I found C.O.I. vandalism the user was blocked indefinitely straight away, as should have happened with this one. --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that the editor doesn't understand Wikipedia's purpose or policies, and that's why I suggested disruptive editing instead of vandalism. A block could be effective, but IP blocks are rarely lengthy and bad faith shouldn't be assumed yet. Most indefinite IP blocks are the result of mistakes or misunderstandings. Peter James (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of talk page by blocked user 69.117.96.21

69.117.96.21 (talk) was just blocked. Immediately after being blocked, he posted this to his talk page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

He was reverted a while ago and has since posted this. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

New user, likely sock--anyone know the master?

A new account, BrewJay (talk · contribs) appeared, and its first edits were to WP:TPG and WT:MEDRS. That certainly seems to me to not be a new user. While I considered bringing the matter here first, the user had a "mailto:" link in her/his signature (again, a customized signature is a clear sign of a non-new user). I didn't want that to propagate any further. If you look at this edit you can see the email address. Does anyone know who this is? Or have I needlessly overreacted? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This user seems to be an IP regular at Talk:Cruciferous vegetables (see Special:Contributions/75.152.119.213, Special:Contributions/75.152.127.203, Special:Contributions/75.152.117.14 and Special:Contributions/75.152.124.222). In response to one series of edits, I have expressed concern about behaviour which, in WP terms, may be considered disruptive, including a specious attempt to game the system [20]. Fwiw, I believe the MED project at least should be spared this sort of disingenuous time-wasting. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just stated on BrewJay's talk page that I still believe he's a disruptive sock, but that since I don't have definitive evidence or a specific master, I won't oppose an unblock if he should choose to request one and another admin is willing to grant it. My full explanation is there. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The user has been editing as an IP since 2011 (or earlier), but a search for "BrewJay" in all namespaces finds an account blocked indefinitely in 2008, which was probably the user's original account. Peter James (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The user has stated in an email to me that they are a new account because their first account was indefinitely blocked; after looking at the contributions of that account, there is no doubt that the user is the same, and that this type of disruption date back at least until 2009. I've withdrawn my offer, and reblocked the account without email or talk page access. However, given how long this has gone on already, it seems plausible that he'll return.

While we're here though, a question: I would never have found the user's original account unless he had told me via email. Given that email communications are considered private and not revealed on WP without permission...can I legitimately link the two accounts via a sockpuppet tag? Or is that revealing private info? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that sockpuppet tags linking the accounts are necessary here at all, whether it involves revealing information from private communications or not. The pattern of editing is recognisable enough without it, and the "sock puppetry" here is only for the purpose of block evasion (of a block issued 4 years ago). If the original account you were told about is the account I found (in use 2006-2008) this doesn't even look like an attempt to create a new identity. If IP edits resume maybe it would be worth linking the IPs to the BrewJay account. Peter James (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Swamilive seems to be back

I decided to take this here instead of WP:SPI because it's so obvious. For example, he added this to User talk:Delicious carbuncle, which is definitely classic Swamilive. The IP he used definitely seems to be in the same range as previously used IPs, too, such as the ones used to vandalize Winnipeg Folk Festival-related articles back in 2009–2010. For further info, check this out: 216.26.215.100 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 13:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I decided to chime in here. Yes, this is John (or Swamilive). I've just served the sentence imposed on a range of IPs, and I have decided to come back (since the block has expired) and contribute constructively, although probably not very frequently. I said hi to DelCarb because well, I wanted to say hi. Since the last time I was able to edit Wikipedia there have been some changes to how one updates. I see now that you can resize an image right there on the page. This was new to me, and I'm pretty sure I made some saves to images that might have been inappropriate. I ask that the community ignore those one or two edits and allow me a period of adjustment to the new editing style. I assure you that, despite my past transgressions, I am ready and willing to be a positive contribution to the project. I have served a very long block sentence. Please do not assume the worst an reinstate the block. I should be afforded a chance to prove myself. 216.26.215.100 (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion and the IP's edits are nothing but vandalism. I suggest someone block the IP.--Atlan (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Brandonworld

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin please look at this guy's contributions? Mostly in his userspace appear to be hoaxes and/or articles fictionalised entries about himself and his friends. Also managed to unhelpfully move his talk page to User talk:Brandonworld/May Fitzgerald and Myra Solosolg which shows other stuff that's been deleted. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted a number of subpages in his userspace, moved back his talk page, and left a note for him explaining acceptable uses of his user space. --Laser brain (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated hostile, insulting remarks by User:Carolmooredc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In an RfC on Gary North, the above user has maligned me for "want[ing to destroy a living person on Wikipedia" and alleged I am motivated to do this ot "bolster [my] own status among their peers, assuming their peers would take such activities seriously." She provides no evidence for this allegation, and therefore it constitutes WP: Personal attack. When I called her out on this, she attacked me as "hypersensitive"; when another user (a libertarian who strongly opposes my view on the RfC) characterized Carol's ocomment as a personal attack, she erroneously accused him of "harassment"

Since Carol to heed to warnings from her peers, and since I am banned from her talk page due to prior warnings about her PA, I need to ask admin to give her a warning about a conduct and a ban from the North article, where she continues to be disruptive. I am willing and able to detail a truly extravagant and massively extensive history of carol's personal attacks/erroneous allegations against other users if admin deems this context to be helpful. Steeletrap (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• First, I did not review who wrote what of the WP:OR under discussion. I made a general statement of frustration about attack BLPs. [Added later actual quote this diff: However much an editor may want to destroy a living person using Wikipedia, and thus bolster their own status among their peers, assuming their peers would take such activities seriously, they still must follow Wikipedia rules to do it and using primary source out of context WP:OR is against the rules.] I specifically told User: Steeletrap in response to his complaint - at this diff: "Such hypersensitivity. Obviously you have never edited dozens of BLPs on Jewish critics of Israel like I have or you would know of what I speak." I struck "hypersensitive". Suggestions on more Wikietiquette compliant phrase to explain my frustration over a false allegation welcome. [Added clarification: False allegation being that I specifically was talking about Steeletrap; I have not seen diff of who put in the info.]
• Second, I asked another user a few weeks back not to contact me on my talk page except with official notices. He forgot and I just wanted to remind him how I felt. He thanked me for reminding him. It's really none of User:Steeletrap's business.
• User:Steeletrap seems to have forgotten I had to do a WP:ANI a couple months back to get others to help stop him from posting questionable comments on my talk page. (Official notices being explicitly exempted, of course.) User:Carolmooredc 20:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Carol, your comment at the RfC about "destroying" was, if not a personal attack directed at a particular editor, inappropriate in any context and certainly inappropriate in an RfC. I suggest you be more careful in the future and limit your comments to content and issues and not attacks on editors, whoever they are.
• Steeletrap, why are you posting this sort of notice of the RfC? Not very neutral, is it?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not at all unneutral; I completely reject that insinuation. I was simply describing the disputed material related to North views, which is in and of itself inflammatory, and how it relates to the noticeboard in question. I did something similar at the Calvinist noticeboard: describing the RfC and how it relates to Calvinism. These posts were accurately describing an inherently inflammatory subject, but were prescriptive or putting any sort of spin on the situation. Steeletrap (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Heh, I'd hardly call it an "insinuation". If you prefer to be obtuse over this, it will only lead to trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Best to stay away from BLPs until whatever doesn't tick me off so much. Or I see enough editors supportive of BLP policy working on an article, so I can relax and not blow my cool. User:Carolmooredc 20:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed resolution Since Carol has apologized for her conduct, and (to my eye) indicated she will steer clear of the article in question, I support ending this matter without sanction provided she 1) confirms my impression regarding her intention to stay away from Gary North, where her disruptive behavior has occurred and 2) crosses out her insulting, hostile remarks on the Gary North RfC. Steeletrap (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think removing the offending two word phrase was sufficient. Though I do think it was a false exaggeration and I probably should just have said so. Will control self and not add it now. I don't think it's a good precedent to let minor complaints be used to chase an editor off a BLP where there are issues. Plus I did put the RfC on a couple Wikiprojects much more relevant than others posted to and am curious to see if there is a response. Plus I am curious to see if the BLP subject is that bad why certain libertarians put up with him. Is there some explanatory text somewhere that's WP:RS? I found a few interesting things, mostly WP:OR (like the WP:OR cherry picked quotes in contention) and others not quite WP:RS. My female curiosity so often gets me in trouble... User:Carolmooredc 23:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I will withdraw my suggestion and suggest a ban on Carol's participation in Gary North, since she refuses to cross out her speculative, bad-faith assuming, PA assertion that I am out to "destroy" and libel North to promote myself on Wikipedia, rather than out to contribute to this encyclopedia. (She incorrectly thinks only the "hypersensitive" slight was a violation of policy.) Given Carol's extensive history of PAs on me, and her repeated refusal (despite prompting from peers and an admin) to acknowledge her editing is disruptive and to change that editing, I think banning her from editing North is necessary. Steeletrap (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, just so you know, any admin can block Carol if they believe it's warranted. However, a ban requires a thorough discussion and a consensus; it's not something an admin can do unilaterally except in circumstances not present here. I would discourage you from pursuing such a ban because I don't believe there is enough to support it, but I also wanted to point out the procedural hurdles.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, as I clarified above I was not writing specifically about Steeletrap when I wrote at this diff: However much an editor may want to destroy a living person using Wikipedia, and thus bolster their own status among their peers, assuming their peers would take such activities seriously, they still must follow Wikipedia rules to do it and using primary source out of context WP:OR is against the rules.

Again I still haven't seen the diff of who put the material in. However, given the tadoo, I can see as a general statement it was not a good one and will strike it, especially since Steeltrap takes it so personally. As frustrated as I may be when I visit various BLPs, I have to stop taking BLP rules so seriously and editorializing about generalized people breaking them! User:Carolmooredc 01:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Given your "mea culpa" and acknowledgement of error, I have no further concern on this matter. I remain very concerned with your general pattern of personal attacks, to which my (literally) dozens of (saved) diffs attest. I recommend that you resolve to focus on content, not contributors, if you wish to avoid other ANIs in the future. Steeletrap (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Not commenting at all on Carolmooredc or Steeletrap, but when I look at Gary North (economist) I see a BLP nightmare. Negative claims sourced only to broken links, opinions from ideological enemies presented as unattributed facts, personal interpretations of primary sources, you name it. Zero^talk 05:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I'm no big fan of the guy, but I just hate such untidy nightmares of wikipedia articles that are ripe for use (or being used) in Guilt by Association references in other BLPs! User:Carolmooredc 05:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't make Off-topic remarks on this thread. There is an RfC where you can share your (distinctly minority) opinion as to "BLP" concerns. Steeletrap (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's relevant to the discussion because that is what Carol said was the concern that she was discussing. As someone who has both collided with and worked side-by-side with Carol for at least three years, I can tell you that her focus is only on well sourced articles in conformance with Wikipedia standards, not on drama with other editors. North8000 (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I highly disagree with North8000's statement regarding an interest from CarolmooreDC solely on well sourced articles. Based primarily on the sheer volume of "drama" associated with this editor, along with numerous edits CarolmooreDC has made over the years regarding an M.O. on Wikipedia of defending very specific political pages from what CarolmooreDC considers "bias". While not involved with this particular article, I can speak from experience in noting that personal attacks are User:Carolmooredc's standard operating procedure. She consistently uses relentless personal attacks and assumes as a matter of course than anyone who disagrees with her has a non neutral POV. For example, a user page from another user documenting CarolmooreDC's persistent attacks on his/her user page:

User_talk:Goodwinsands#Under_the_green_bars:_documentation_of_a_tag-team_harassment_campaign

And from other users "Your_lack_of_good_faith The last two sentences in this edit show an appalling lack of good faith. Is every person with whom you disagree going to be tarred with the false accusations of your choice?"

CarolmooreDC and I had been involved in a longstanding dispute on an article (Gilad Atzmon) I supported both of us being banned from the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive583#Please_ban_two_users_from_article_Gilad_Atzmon) as I had confidence in the Wiki community. CarolMooreDC opposed the idea, and her comments lead an admin to propose she be banned from Wikipedia entirely "The fact that you think it's appropriate to post a message like this while the ANI discussion is going on makes me wonder whether a permanent ban from Wikipedia might be more appropriate." Drsmoo (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

RE: DrSmoo: If one looks under the GreenBars one finds evidence that my charge User:Goodwinsands was a sockpuppet were worth looking at. (Obviously he changed the titles of every posting a couple of us made about his questionable editing habits to something reflecting his viewpoint and deprecating our concerns. Rather tacky.)

Then you link to two 2009 discussions. Finally, I don't notice that either of us have interacted at Atzmon since December 5 of 2011. So I have to wonder why you bring such stale material here. User:Carolmooredc 00:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Even here you're personally attacking other users. Why call him "tacky"? Drsmoo (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In this thread, above -- at 20:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC) -- I understood carolmooredc to say that she would stay away from BLPs until she could participate without getting upset. Then, beginning almost immediately she posted the first of over 20 additional edits on the North article. Three weeks ago, after a making a barrage of harassing and personal attack posts, she made a similar promise to stay away from BLPs she feels are contentious. That promise lasted until the recent uncivil behavior relating to the North article. Carolmooredc has not been able to confine her contributions to content and policy and consistently phrases her remarks in edit summaries and on talk pages in terms of adversarial, and frequently hostile, personal comments. I am not convinced that this problem can be addressed without an explicit remedy, either voluntary or imposed. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

First, this is the User:Specifico who has been brought to WP:ANI numerous times since last fall and was discussed at length in this ANI in June for harassing talk page notices. [Later clarification - and this was after I asked him to stop following me and responding in some way to me at 4 different new pages in 30 hours was evidence of Wikihounding. Could it be this is one reason I was upset about BLPs?? And that an ANI about did not get what I thought was a very appropriate response?]

Re: 20:29 above, I said it was best to stay away until User:Steeletrap demanded I promise to stay away from an article where I feel Steeletrap is engaging in yet another incredibly biased editing adventure. As I wrote, that would considering a single diff, a misinterpretation of something I wrote, was used as an excuse, that would be a really bad precedent.

However, after wasting another few hours on the article last night I decided that I really could not deal with seeing what goes on in the articles Specifico and his academic economics colleague/collaborator User:Steeletrap work on, so I quit the article. (I assume Specifico is not Steeletrap's MBA advisor who steered Steeletrap to Wikipedia? Steeletrap didn't answer when I asked. They certainly agree many Austrian economics-related articles must be rewritten to serve their academic biases.)

This NPOVN deals with the bias issues. ANI searches will show they were shared at various points by other editors who have now left (or been driven off?) Wikipedia after interacting with User:Specifo (and his past allies) or Specifico/Steeletrap: User:Xerographica, User:Byelf2007, User:Sageo, User:Id4abel. These editors also lost their tempers over heavily biased editing behavior.

FYI, the subject of the bio I just quit, Gary North, wrote really creepy stuff in the 80s/90s and still may hold the same views, even if he doesn't write about them in various libertarian publications. However, I speculate that editors may see it as great article for poisoning other BLPs of people who have even a loose association with North.

A current example of how destructive the editing is this: Specifico and/or Steeletrap removed from the lead of Murray Rothbard any mention of Rothbard being an "economist of the Austrian school" - despite seven high quality references to that effect. I put that info back last night, but Steeletrap reverted the edit and removed this important factoid again. In June an editor who is not a Rothbard fan wrote at Wikiproject Economics that she was appalled that anyone would consider removing economist from the Infobox. Steeltrap/Specifico removed it from there and the lead of the article itself!

I personally think Wikipedia, especially regarding BLPs, is too broken to stop editors who hate subjects of bios from making poorly sourced or minor incidents the focus of whole articles, not to mention removing well sourced neutral or positive information. (At least in the Israel-Palestine issue there were enough strong voices against this sort of thing, even if it was a constant battle; far less in the Austrian/libertarian area, I'm afraid, making it more frustrating.)

I am relieved that I now have an excuse to cut back on my Wiki editing and get my own writing done. However, I do have a long letter I'm writing to the Wikimedia Foundation about the dangers of allowing BLP abuses to flourish. I'll suggest a couple things they might do to see if there isn't some way they can promote more effective protection from POV pushers out to ruin others' reputation. (Feel free to leave suggestions via my talk page or email.)

But, to be a bit sarcastic, I confess: if I'm so evil, and Steeltrap/Specifico such paradigms of neutral BLP editing, please block me for a few weeks. I need to avoid temptation anyway! Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 02:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User carolmooredc has again posted a defense which rationalizes her conduct by stating that such disruptive and uncivil conduct is somehow necessary in order to maintain the BLP policies here. But there are numerous instances of her uncivil behavior and personal attacks that have no relation whatsoever to content or policy. For example after user Steeletrap objected to a personal attack by Carolmooredc, she responded with a gratuitous anti-Semitic slur in reply to user Steeletrap, who self-identifies as Jewish on her user page. On numerous other occasions carolmooredc has post entirely gratuitous and irrelevant anti-Semitic slurs on talk pages, such as in this edit summary here. Carolmooredc has made hundreds of uncivil, harassing, disruptive, and personal attack posts and edit comments which cannot be rationalized away or justified by her empty claim that such attacks are necessary to support WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In addition to her repeated anti-Semitic insinuations ("Zionists" is a favored code word of this crowd) and personal attacks, Carol often engages in baseless personal speculation about editors, such as her false suggestion that SPECIFICO is my "faculty advisor" for an "MBA" program. Her conduct is detrimental to this community and needs to be dealt with. Steeletrap (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

[Insert: How many times does one have to tell Steeletrap that a question is not an accusation?

When you repeatedly refer to your close relationship to SPECIFICO, and have written about your faculty advisor, one begins to wonder. And this came up in the context of Talk:Sharon_Presley where less than 24 hours after I made a minor edit to the article you came there for the first time and questioned if she was notable enough for an article. Felt like wikihounding to me, by your and/or someone else tracking my edits. But when I asked you you said a "colleage" had recommended you look at it - and in the past you said your Faculty Advisor had told you to look at some of these people. So I asked ifthat collegue was SPECIFICO and was he your advisor. You didn't bother to answer.

To make myself clear, just because I choose to drop off a bunch of controversial articles, in part because Wikipedia doesn't take my complaints about bad editing seriously, doesn't mean people should feel free to follow me to new articles and try to make me quit them too. User:Carolmooredc 15:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

--@carolmooredc: Please provide diffs for your statement to Steeletrap, "you repeatedly refer to your close relationship to SPECIFICO" It is weird to learn that you're speculating and posting about me on articles I didn't even know existed. You have repeatedly referred to this imaginary relationship you project on me and user Steeletrap. You've repeatedly been told that we do not know one another except as anonymous editors on WP, yet you continue to state what you call your "question" or to outright assert that some relationship exists. To be frank, it kind of creeps me out. Please provide diffs that document the statements by Steeletrap in which Steeletrap refers to a close relationship. SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• To save anyone else the bother, investigating the first couple of links shows that the complaints in this report are baseless. The wording used by Carolmooredc was fine—pointy, but fine. It did not name an editor, and there was no hint concerning whether a specific editor was the target of the comments. The comment could be argued to be off-topic as it did not refer to a policy, but all experienced editors who have tried to protect BLP articles from enthusiasts have had to use similar wording to explain the core issue to those involved in the discussion. This report should be closed and discussion focus on the issue—is it acceptable that certain words (portraying a named person as a nutcase) are used in Wikipedia's voice based on primary sources? Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

  Rather than "saving anyone else the bother" it would be better to let people come to their own conclusions. Carolmooredc has been making personal attacks on users, and editing in a highly disruptive manner for years. She's even making personal attacks on this noticeboard. She openly baits, harasses and threatens anyone who disagrees with her on a topic, and has been doing so for years. Drsmoo (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

  Which links above provide evidence for those strong claims (which, without plausible evidence, are personal attacks)? I just checked a couple more links and they do not show what was claimed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

For anyone who doesn't bother to follow the one link of "evidence" provided by Specifico, this link reads: "Such hypersensitivity. Obviously you have never edited dozens of BLPs on Jewish critics of Israel like I have or you would know of what I speak." How can defending Jewish BLPs be an ant-Semitic slur?? Makes no sense. (A few of many articles off the top of my head are Richard Falk, Mondoweiss-related articles, Israel Shahak, Norton Mezvinsky, Oren Ben-Dor.)

There have been a couple ethnic conflict areas - not to mention Scientology-related articles - where lots of people angrily protested biased editing and sock and meat puppet behaviors. I haven't seen any diffs showing that my anger was so much more outrageous than theirs.

But obviously bringing up in the RfC the generalized issue which transcended that particular article, series of articles or that RfC was wrong. For various reasons, but particularly Wikipedia's years of failure to deal with editors who repeatedly "attack" BLPs (even putting back bad info rejected at BLPN's weeks before, but don't get me started), I decided recently to unwatch the articles where repeated problems arose. As I've said in the last ANI regarding SPECIFICO's (and Steeltrap') problematic editing, I've been waiting a while for the straw to break the sexagenarians back and blessed be!, it has finally floated down from the heavens! But after five years it can be hard to break the pattern of trying to defend BLPs, and some topic areas, from abuse and thus I let myself get sucked into an RfC. Again, Mea Culpa. User:Carolmooredc 12:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Carol can be a bit rough (and over the years I've been the recipient) and maybe her dialing back a 1/4 notch would be a good thing. But I consider that to be minor (and which pales in comparison) to the nastiness and trying-to-do-people-harm which prevails in Wikipedia. Her focus is always on building quality, well sourced articles, and not on battles or drama with editors. North8000 (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The OP quite misstates the issues, personalities etc. regarding the Gary North (economist) article which are the subject of several noticeboard discussions. I suggest that those wading trough this wall of text should read such posts as ones saying that conservative Christians hate gays and that we must be sure to make that clear in their BLPs, and the like. (see WP:BLP/N and WP:NPOV/N for the relevant discussions and the posts by the OP and others) Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm glad to see that while I largely stopped paying attention other editors have been dealing with these issues with these two editors!! Makes me feel better about Wikipedia. User:Carolmooredc 15:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sample of personal attacks from Carol As a brief sampling, Carol has ridiculed my capacity for academics 1, accused user SPECIFICO and myself of sexism see: 2 and 3, and claimed that I am intentionally trying to violate the rules of Wikipedia 4 I encourage Admin (User:Bbb23) to ask for more examples of violations of policy regarding WP:PA before taking action to resolve this question. It seems to me that flagrant and constant violations of policy must be addressed. Steeletrap (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've debunked all of those before at ANI, but don't remember which one.

1) When you made more excuses for not referencing some material I said: Don't give us ten thousand words of explanation why you don't need one. Do the work. Do you give your advisor all these excuses why you don't need references? It can be very frustrating when someone is so WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on so many policy issues, especially when they are trying to write a lot of negative stuff on BLPs.

2) When here User:SPECIFICO accused me of venting rage I wrote in response: "Generally speaking males often experience strongly held and clearly expressed female ideas as psychotic rage. Have you heard about the Wikimedia Gender Gap project to bring more women into wikimedia/pedia so males will get more used to it? " Shame on me for mentioning one of the issues oft discussed in this WikiFoundation project!

3) I alluded to being physically hyped up from drinking too much coffee (which I do myself sometimes) or whatever - who remembers now? Obviously I should have been more explicit. Shame on me! User:Carolmooredc 20:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• This thread reveals again the broken state of Wikipedia's dispute resolution. A couple of editors have posted tons of links and claims regarding Carolmooredc, yet it is easy to click some of the links and discover that the claims are false. It is absurd that this nonsense has to be tolerated by someone who is defending BLPs, and an admin should take charge because waiting to find out which team of supporters can repeat themselves longer than the other is never productive (actually, it's counterproductive because it's usually those with an agenda who have the motivation to keep going). Would an admin please check a few of the links claiming Carolmooredc is bad, and if agreeing that the claims are clearly false, close this thread with a strong warning that ANI reports should not be based on misunderstandings of policy. If someone uninvolved does not agree that the claims are false, please post a brief explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hear, hear! I agree with the suggestion by Johnuniq. Please put a stop to this unproductive series of accusations. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Another personal attack was just made by Carol~ Here, she accuses me, based on no evidence whatsoever other than my editing of LGBT articles and having publicly stated my transgender identity, of caring about LGBT rights above and at the expense of the rights of women and other people. I regard this baseless, stereotypical comment to be hateful and bigoted.

Admins really need to read the Carol-related content, posted above, in its full context; that full context shows that Carol continues to fail to assume GF and level baseless accusations and personal insults at users with whom she disagrees. I submit that her conduct contradicts the basic principles of our community. Steeletrap (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about a BLPN discussion. BLPN's purpose reads: This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. The topic is your trying to insert homosexuality into a section header even though homosexuals are not the only people mentioned. (Pardon a female if she gets upset that execution of females for abortion is given so short a shrift!) At Hans-Hermann Hoppe you did this so many times, and were reverted so many times by various editors, that it's difficult not to think this is an obsession of yours that you are imposing on Wikipedia biographies of living people, which is very disruptive. Maybe I should just do a WP:BLPN on that with a link to the reverts, the numerous and repeated discussion sections and subsections, and whatever noticeboards the issue ended up on. It's out of control. If people want to block me for saying so, fine! User:Carolmooredc 01:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

One glance at Hans-Hermann Hoppe#Academic freedom controversy over remarks on homosexuals shows a seriously problematic BLP concern, in my opinion, by blowing up a controversy way out of proportion to the rest of the man's biography. This is nothing new, there has been agenda-driven article inflation by activists across the project for years. The problems arise when other editors try to identify and rectify such editing, they get labeled as racists, bigots, homophobes, antisemites, depending on what the subject matter is. Being concerned about a BLP that has may have an undue focus on an LGBT-oriented "controversy" does not make one a bigot, nor make their concerns bigoted. Tarc (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"it's difficult not to think this is an obsession of yours that you are imposing on Wikipedia biographies of living people, which is very disruptive." I suggest not concerning yourself with the personal lives of other users, or threatening them. Drsmoo (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

[inserted] Tarc, I just reviewed the talk archive of Hoppe's article. I do not see any instance of one editor calling another a bigot or homophobe for their edits and opinions at that article. I think it's been inflammatory that editors who become frustrated with their counterparts in content disputes make the kind of implied or strawman (call it what you will, it's certainly not documented) reference to such behavior. What did happen is that Carolmooredc has just again, directly above on this page, projected inappropriate behavior -- violations of core WP policy -- to Steeletrap with no evidence or diffs. Carolmooredc's apparent inability to curtail this behavior raises questions about her WP:COMPETENCE to edit here. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If Steeletrap keeps posting ridiculous claims like Another personal attack, WP:COMPETENCE should be invoked to remove the editor from ANI, and possibly from Wikipedia if the same lack-of-clue shown here is evident in more general editing. Steeletrap is reading information that is not in the post. Basic competence with understanding English is required when editing an encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• John, please refer to WP:PA. It is a personal attack to imply, on the basis of no evidence, that a user lacks "basic competence with understanding English". Please cross your remarks and resolve not to violate wikipedia policy in the future. Steeletrap (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I suppose I have to provide some evidence in view of the above mud spreading, but I would prefer that this thread not extend to WP:TLDR because that guarantees no admin will bother taking the corrective action required. However, in a post above at "00:52, 30 July 2013" (diff and tweaked), Steeletrap justified "Another personal attack" with this diff. The last diff shows Carolmooredc making a comment at "21:17, 29 July 2013" on BLPN, and the comment includes: "The problem here is POV pushing. Steeletrap thinks the most important issue anyone can focus on is wrongs to homosexuals. Other people think the NPOV way to put it is all people who fall into the class of sinners. This kind of narrow focus on wrongs done to only one class of people, downplaying that done to others, does not make for NPOV editing, looks like an attempt to rouse certain groups to hate and/or action, and is extremely disruptive of the encyclopedia. We had the same problem repeatedly with Steeletrap at Hans-Hermann Hoppe. And it's insulting to everyone else who nutty Xians might want to execute."

    The context is a BLPN discussion on whether Gary North (economist) should include a section titled 'Support for executing homosexuals and other "sinners"' (as in this "sinners" old revision). Apparently North has written that a bunch of sinners should be executed, and the discussion concerns whether the targets "homosexuals" should be highlighted in the title when several categories of "sinners" are listed. In that context, Carolmooredc's comment is asserting that "Steeletrap thinks the most important issue anyone can focus on is wrongs to homosexuals", and Steeletrap interprets that as "caring about LGBT rights above and at the expense of the rights of women and other people. I regard this baseless, stereotypical comment to be hateful and bigoted." Stirring stuff, but totally unconnected with what Carolmooredc wrote. It's ok to be wrong, but making so many mistakes at an ANI report with claims of gross attacks does show a COMPETENCE problem. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

  Without agreeing or disagreeing with your argument, you made it in the context of Wikipedia policy. Carolmooredc makes her arguments in the context of insinuations about the personal lives of people she disagrees with. That is a fundamental difference, and it's not acceptable. Drsmoo (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

  After all the above, we get another claim with no diff. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

  There are many diffs posted. Pretending they don't exist doesn't make it so. Drsmoo (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

  Please copy one diff to a new comment and briefly describe what it shows (is it an attack? why?). I have checked a few diffs, and they do not show the problem claimed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

John, do you really think you are in a position to lecture others on policy when you are personally attacking other users? Your statement that I lack "basic competence" in English (which is quite distinct from a question of my editing capacities) simply can't be taken seriously in any respect other than as an attempt to demean or insult. Steeletrap (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

My characteristics are not relevant, and discussing them is only a distraction from the issue of this thread. Please respond to the substantive comments at "02:52, 30 July 2013" just above. Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As someone who noted the section being too long "guarantees no admin will bother taking the corrective action" it's curious that you would ask for things that have already been posted to be re-posted. You have already stated your opinion, no need for you to restate it. I would also advise other users not to fall into being baited and responding to personal attacks. All that is relevant are the personal attacks from the user in question.Drsmoo (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I ask because the diffs I've looked at do not justify the claims made. So please choose a diff and briefly explain why it is an attack. I also checked the diffs shown below: Carol might be mistaken or off-topic, but why would Steeletrap think "it's used to make me look foolish and duplicitous"? Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

False personal allegations by User: Carolmooredc. In this edit, she claims I have (despite having no formal training in the matter) self-identified as an economist; the context of this claim is too convoluted and cumbersome to explain here, but it's used to make me look foolish and duplicitous. Her initial claim was made without any evidence. Then, after she was criticized for making baseless claims, she substantied it with a shamefully out-of-context quote by Stalwart111 (who does not identify as an economist), which she erroneously attributed to me. (see: 2) Steeletrap (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I clicked on your links, but cannot find the instances you are refering to. Could you provide the diffs? I ask because merely saying someon is (or considers himself to be) an economist hardly seems to be a demeaning statement, so I want to check the context. -- Fsol (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Fsol, I've added diffs for context below. The context is that Carol attributed a quote of mine (stating quite plainly that I do not have economics qualifications) to Steeletrap and then used that mistaken attribution to assert that he, "thinks he could refer to self as economist" and "have final say on who's a real economist". She's effectively claiming that Steeletrap lied about economics credentials and has mistakenly used a quote of mine as proof. Stalwart111 07:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, I assume you mean that taking it out of context was shameful, rather than that my original quote was shameful... ha ha.

Yeah, I think somewhere along the way Carol misinterpreted this diff (or that discussion in general). The line Carol quotes in this edit is most certainly my line, to which Steeletrap was responding. I'd like to think the misquoting was unintentional but Carolmoore's recent editing has included some quite bizarre stuff and I'm just not sure what to think any more. She seems to be getting very frustrated and upset at some pretty mundane policy discussions and the ad-hom stuff is starting to creep in (like her describing editors as trying to, "use a few jerks to tarnish all freedom lovers everywhere"). I'm not even sure what that means - I asked but got no response. Stalwart111 06:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It would indeed be nice if Carolmooredc's misrepresentation and incivility were unintentional, but when such instances are pointed out to her -- as I did on that same thread or as Stalwart says he did above, -- Carolmooredc goes silent and fails to provide the requested documentation and declines to retract her unfounded remarks. Unfortunately, her WP posts over the past two months -- in edit sumnmaries, talk page comments, and noticeboard postings -- read like her personal diary of accusation, conjecture, and harassment of other editors who disagree with her regarding WP content. She regularly posts links which fail to support her assertions and attacks. Her numerous tours of the noticeboards and ANI have failed to sustain her accusations, yet she continues to cite them as if her accusations themselves, rejected on noticeboards, were primary evidence against the editors she targets.

Carolmooredc has conceded that she has become agitated and has cited various reasons for her uncivil and disruptive behavior. She has promised several times to take time off from editing the articles that upset her, most recently in this very ANI above, but she has been unable to stay away. What to do? SPECIFICO talk 13:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet another response to yet another exaggerated accusaton.
This edit of mine was a really messy correction of my misinterpreting many remarks of User:Steeletrap as saying he was an economist in training working on an MBA in economics. In this diff I alluded to there Steeletrap writes: "I could call myself a economist or an economics scholar, even if I don't have an economics degree." [Struck misinterpreted quote.]

If you want to read Steeletrap and Specifico writing at length about their economic expertise and their views of those horrid Mises/Rockwell/Rothbardians, as well as conflict of interest questions about her masters degree and her faculty advisor (which also led the inaccurate impression it was a masters in economics), etc, see this diff of a big deleted talk page section. Read it quick enough and you'll get confused on some points but definitely get certain impressions I'll allow you to describe for yourself. Many of the points they make there are repeated over and over in various fashions on a host of talk pages.

As for my writing "have final say on who's a real economist", that's the impression I get from 15 or 20 times when either Steeletrap or Specifico have pontificated on their opinion of whether a host of Austrian economists they don't like were or were not economists,or notable enough to be called economists. See Murray Rothbard,Hans-Hermann Hoppe or Jesus Huerta de Soto talk pages for starters; I haven't paid attention to several other such economists' articles they've been busy working on (or over?).

But seriously, if neutral editors think I am misinterpreting the following by pointing out absurd amounts of editorial bias 1/3 of the times I see it, please do tell. I asked on the talk page of the policy FAQ but never got an answer.

Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors: I agree with the nonbias policy but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?

Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page ...(etc more advice).

So that's the response to today's inquisition. User:Carolmooredc 14:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No, Carol, he didn't write that at all. Again, that quote is from me. Please re-read that diff you keep posting. The section shaded in grey is the part I wrote to which Steeltrap is responding. It was not written by him. Here's the whole comment from me, one edit earlier, including that line. I just don't know now if you're trolling, being intentionally obtuse, or you still just haven't actually read that diff? Stalwart111 14:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

After so many go-rounds and so much editor time spent responding to Carolmooredc's disruptive behavior and its reverberations, we need not speculate about her thoughts and motivations. What is important, I think, is to consider whether she has the WP:COMPETENCE to edit at the present time against the standard in Competence is Required. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to review Stalwart111 comments more carefully but there's only so much one can respond to before brain freeze sets in.

In a quick look at the diff I did NOT understand that you meant you wrote you wrote the following: "I could call myself a economist" etc... Well, the rest of my comments hold. Read the big long diff from the deleted talk page fast enough and many other things written by Steeletrap and one easily can get the misimpression Steeletrap is an economist in training working on a Masters. So I have no idea what the subject of Steeletrap's Masters is and don't have the energy to read that long diff and figure it out.

Also on your asking what I mean by "use a few jerks to tarnish all freedom lovers everywhere". What I meant was

a) to make it clear that I did NOT agree with every jerky thing said by some of these Austrian economists - non-wikipedians HAVE used my wikipedia editing offline to make such false claims against me. So sometimes I have to call these subjects jerks and nuts for stupid things they say/think just so my offline stalkers can't claim I'm defending them. It's a nasty world out there... (Especially if one naively signed up here under one's own name.)

b) Obviously an editor could emphasize the most ridiculous aspects of a couple of Mises/Rothbard/Rockwell associates to try to make living people those associates have said nice things about look bad. I often suspect that's the reason that a while back an editor removed a nice comment about Murray Rothbard from some neutral WP:RS and replaced it with a fatuously glowing comment from Hans-Hermann Hoppe whose article focuses to an absurd degree on a couple of academic comments he made that happen to mention homosexuals; read article for details. Of course, per this talk page discussion some people want to have it both ways, don't put in the neutral factoids from Rothbard acqaintances but let those whose articles have been transformed into partisan hit pieces say all they want?? But there I go again, taking seriously Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. At least I avoided using names; I'm sure this would not be the only kind of BLP where this happens. User:Carolmooredc 15:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Carol, I have never said I am an "MBA" student, a claim which you are using to somehow imply I identify as an economist. Please provide a diff to substantiate your remark. Steeletrap (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope editors will take a look at the line ------------ that I added near the top of this discussion. CMDC said "mea culpa" and OP accepted it. At that point this discussion could have been closed. I'll add another line just below this post. I hope it will serve as a point that allows for closure. – S. Rich (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Rich, the title is broad enough to include a broad discussion of policy violations. Please do not close the discussion. And please note that my accepting the "mea culpa" was contingent on Carol making no further PA; as well as Carol ceasing to post on the North page( neither of which she managed to do). Steeletrap (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Daufer again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After coming off his block per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive805#Hounding_of_Niemti_by_Daufer we have [21], [22], [23] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please could an administrator block Daufer? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed offensive messages here [24][25][26]which also accepted that a block would follow, and reblocked. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

He is already blocked for one year by Jimfbleak Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the response of Jimflbleak that you removed, probably accidentally. Please be more careful in future. Mathsci (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And I've just removed talk page editing since the abuse continued [27] Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good gracious, I would support a community ban of Daufer for repeated racist statements of the Nazi kind ("subhuman Polish" -- see Untermensch). Clearly Daufer is not WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, or perhaps his vision of Wikipedia is that it should be like a neonazi forum. In either case, his approach is totally incompatible with the five pillars. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Five blocks, two talk page revocations, no sign of any attempt to improve behaviour, racism and unpleasant messages even after my long block. I'm not going to argue with any anything up to any including the kitchen sink. I dread to think what he's like on Twitter Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Talk about squandering a second chance. Support community ban. "subhuman Polish" is way, way, way over the line. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Just glanced at the contribs, and besides wondering why this is not an indef-block, I have three words from English, Chinese and French: Hoe. Li. Phoques. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Recent contribs make eye-watering reading and leave no hope for improvement. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support community ban - there's not here to contribute, and then there's this. Holy shit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Reading his diatribe is enough to do so, without other factors. GregJackP Boomer! 13:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• You know what scares me? Things like [28] sitting in articles for 8 days. I'm going through their edits now, checking no more of this type of bullshit has been left in articles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. They should have known better than to make those statements after a block. CtP (t • c) 14:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Community ban. He has been only hounding users, and that is not productive for the encyclopedia. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Wow. I would have blocked and closed this had I been signed on to my admin account. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 15:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Community ban. Seems incapable of working collegially. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Community ban. I saw these comments earlier this morning, and it's clear he isn't here to help. Insulam Simia (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support community ban. A deplorable case. Taroaldo ✉ 18:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Sayonara Absolutely disgusting behavior. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support community ban and/or indefblock. WP:NOPLACEFORHATE. Shearonink (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block evasion by Jayemd

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Jayemd is back as User:JMD15, at least according to this. ANI 1 resulted in mentoring, ANI 2 resulted in an indef block, with increased restrictions for cross-wiki abuse and edits likethis. So far, he has only edited my Talk page. I also find it odd that he specifically referred to me by my old username. While I don't exactly consider this outing, I changed my username for a reason, to avoid IRL connections after off-wiki harassment. (Not by Jayemd, of course.) Now if Jayemd wants to return, that's obviously a community or admin decision, which is why I'm bringing this here. Woodroar (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• blocked indefinetly Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass changes

Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this user is targeting my changes and reverting the addition of Social groups of Pakistan category. The tribal and clan identity is fading and they identify themselves with their ethnic group. I have added Social group category with removed by Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with mass changes using Twinkle. This has taken me long time to review and make changes. Please resolve this matter. Delljvc (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I enjoy the fact that you used the template {{vandal}} as a link to Sitush. The template explicitly says "This user information template is intended only for use when reporting accounts or IPs who are vandalising Wikipedia". Please don't personally attack people and/or misuse the template. Insulam Simia (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Me, too. And my "mass changes" are in fact reverts of your edits, Delljvc, so who was making "mass changes" first? Have you actually looked at the various messages I've left on your talk page over, say, the last month? The issue of overcategorisation was mentioned, for example. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Deljvc, even after reporting me here you are making poor edits of the type that caused me to begin reverting you. In that example diff, you have removed {{Pakistan-ethno-stub}} despite the article clearly being a stub and clearly being about a socially-defined category (ie: ethnicity); similarly, you have added Category:Social groups of Pakistan even though the article is already in Category:Swati Pashtun tribes and that is a sub-category of the one you added. Indeed, you created that subcategory a couple of weeks ago, although probably incorrectly since it was already a part of Category:Batani Pashtun tribes --> Category:Pashtun tribes --> Category:Social groups of Pakistan. You clearly do not understand the concepts of stubs and overcats, even though it seems likely that there is also a bit of a problem in the categorisation of these groups. Unfortunately, you are also ignoring advice and making exactly the same mistakes over and over again. If you don't understand something then you should ask but instead you seem to blunder on. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Epistemophil and talk page spamming

I have the admin bit, but have never really used it outside research purposes. However, I did just block User:Epistemophil after he/she posted a survey request on my talk page.

That survey asks personal questions, but I stopped before I could determine whether its claimed purpose was legitimate or not. There is no mention of approval anywhere for such mass talk-page posting. The user even lacks a user page.

Moreover, the account is new and has no edits besides these. This all felt very fishy, and given that the account was moving quickly, I made the call to block the account. Can someone review the block just as confirmation and extend/adjust it is appropriate with blocking norms. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Now with some discussion on the user's talk page. Seemingly benign in intention, but completely unaware of policies. I'll note that I only blocked here because of concerns over semi-(automation) given the speed of posting and possible privacy concern; else I realize the normal templating would have been sufficient. West.andrew.g (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the block was sensible. Now don't forget to sign your posts on the user's talk page. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, it's kind of strange. Surveys of course are nothing new, but one from a brand-new user who doesn't say who they are or clarify the purpose of the survey... odd. But not nearly as odd as the survey itself, which includes some genuinely bizarre sex questions. Dunno what the point of it all is... world's strangest phishing/blackmail attempt, new angle on trolling, or a very, very perverse grad student? All of the above? In any case I'd say good block. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• They were covering a lot of ground quickly. Oddness of the questions is also of concern. Good block. Taroaldo ✉ 21:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

For those who missed it: "My online reputation (based on my contributions to Wikipedia) allows me to attract more sexual partners." Yes, I can't even begin to explain the prowess that my 200k semi-automated edits entitles me to (haha)!!! I will note that the author claims a real identity and academic affiliation. West.andrew.g (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And the C.V. of that academic affiliation does have some publications involving sexual psychology, so it seems like a research survey that has just gone a bit astray. Looks like this one will fall into the Research Committee's lap. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've rollbacked all the posts. --Rschen7754 21:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

One day of block after this user_talk:s rampage? It’s milder than I expected. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As I stated, I was just trying to stop the action. If it needs to be extended, by all means, someone can handle it -- this is just not my area of expertise. But the user does seem to the get the picture now and is tied to a real-life identity. The threat of a call to Florida Atlantic's IRB board should certainly be enough to stop the behavior from recurring, and once the block expires he can at least participate in policy pages in order to get his/her work in compliance. West.andrew.g (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The statment "I'm not new to Wikipedia, but just created this new username for the sake of this survey" seems to possibly fall under WP:SOCK#LEGIT but should likely be tagged as such. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• The survey was interesting. For the block - I would say a block done is done(especially such a short one) and I don't think an extension is needed unless the editor doesn't correct themselves and continues to their psycho-sexual analysis of Wikipedia editors :-P.  A m i t  웃   00:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Surveys from random people are dangerous, and should only be permitted if thoroughly vetted by the WMF, and only if run from WMF servers. There is a strong possibility that people connected with a survey can record the Wikipedia user name (and user rights—is the user an admin?) with the IP address of the computer used, and possibly their email address, and their answers to the survey. A harmless initial survey may be used to guess which participants would be vulnerable to a more probing follow-up, with the participants being led to reveal information that is not in their interests. I'm a bit paranoid about security and the ability of clever people to cause damage from social engineering, but even if that is disregarded, spamming editors is a massive misuse of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Good call to block. If they're legitimate that will get them into the right channel to do their research, and if not, so much the better to stop them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Johnuniq makes an excellent point wrt social engineering. And we could all benefit from a little bit of paranoia about our own personal security. Taroaldo ✉ 00:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'm all for a survey if it's taken through the proper channels (i.e. discussed onwiki) and publisised through things like Signpost but spamming a survey to editors from an unknown account is bit fishy. Plus I highly agree with Johnuniqs points regarding Social Engineering Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Omdo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Omdo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Omdo was blocked for 7 days [29], by Dennis Brown, for refusing to address copyright issues, and the block was extended to 10 days for evasion.

Dennis subsequently issued a final warning here, to inform Omdo that he needed to address these issues or be reblocked, and indicated the same to me here [30].

Omdo has continued to refuse to address these issues, and added new unattributed copy/pastes and copyvios since the block - as can be seen by reading his talk page. Diffs for requests to rectify/address the problems include: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36].

I have attempted to help, fixed many of the problems his edits cause, and spent a lot of time on both this, and rewriting his contributions to comply with our policies. Other users have also needed to revert or fix many of his edits. He has never responded to any requests for discussion, or ceased to add copyvios. At this point I feel I have no option but to suggest a block until he discusses and addresses the issues.

Dennis is currently busy at work, and does not have time to take further action at the moment, so suggested I file this report: [37]. I have notified Omdo and Dennis of this discussion. Begoon ^talk 03:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block – he has "no time" to address the issues but has plenty of time to continue with non-constructive editing. Unacceptable. Taroaldo ✉ 08:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block. Continued disruptive editing after having been blocked for such with no indication that the editor intends to stop. Unfair burden on other editors. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block as per above. Also because he seems to think that his time is more valuable than the time of other editors. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef. It's a not brainer really, not even sure why we're discussing it. Persistent breaking of one of the most important rules we have, refusal to change behaviour following previous blocks, and ultimately to protect the project from legal repercussions. GedUK  11:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. Just do it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef - enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support I think Dennis or any other admin could have made it indef already.  A m i t  웃   12:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• CCI opened. Why hasn't he been indeffed yet? MER-C 13:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinitely blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improper behaviour?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. I would like to ask you regarding the appropriateness of User:John's recent behaviour. On 5 July he criticised User:Sjakkalle ([38]). In response to that, User:Quale criticised said post on User talk:John yesterday ([39]). John reacted to that by telling Quale that the conversation is in his opinion outdated, and branded his post trolling ([40]). After that I criticised John's reasoning ([41]), and John reverted my edit with the edit summary "fuck off and troll elsewhere, will you?" ([42]). He then proceeded to use the "troll" word again ([43]), and since I do not consider such behaviour proper, I placed a template warning on John's talk page ([44]), after which John reverted my edit with the edit summary "*flush*" ([45]).

Is this sort of behaviour considered proper? Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Toccata quarta, I really really appreciate your and Quale's attemts at defending me. In my view John's behavior breaks all the rules of civility, AGF, and NPA into pieces, but I don't want either of you to get into a conflict with him over me. I would simply prefer to have as little to do with John as possible. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, but there is also the issue of his behaviour towards me. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: User:John has now reverted the ANI notice I left on his talk page, and marked it as "minor" ([46]). Please note that before an edit is undone, editors get told that "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." As this last revert did not contain any text of his own, I have now been accused of both trolling and vandalism by John. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing improper about that; he's entitled to remove messages from his own talk page, and an ANI notification is just that, a notification. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Toccata....are there more recent issues between you and John? It's a little late now to worry about a conversation from July 5.--MONGO 16:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well its his talk page, he is free to do what he wishes with it(is a F word on his own talk page comment an issue here?), unless he is insulting you or misrepresenting facts about you. Reverting/Removing is neither insulting nor misrepresenting (it just well just plain reverting and removing). Is accusing you of being a troll an issue here and you believe you were not trolling even when you or the other editor were raising some concerns about a month and half old closed AN, then I did find a good essay for you to read about trolling and misidentified trolls  A m i t  웃   16:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Reverting on his own talkpage is of course acceptable. I agree with Roscelese with that. However the edit summary ""fuck off and troll elsewhere" is not acceptable, so I cannot agree with the evaluation that "there's nothing improper". There is no exception in the WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL policies that say that you may swear at people on your user talkpage. But please, Toccata, don't continue this one. I know from my experience that it is very frustrating when people can make vicious attacks on your character and apparently be let off scot-free. However, I have also learned from my experience that editors who continue with that type of behavior sooner or later get their comeuppance since it over time alienates a larger and larger portion of the community. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Editors should be careful about referring to other editors as "trolls", but bringing up an old, closed issue was hardly likely to elicit a warm & cuddly response, and leaving a template warning for a user who's been here since 2006 is just straight-up rude. There may be issues relating to these editors of which I'm not aware, but looking at the evidence presented I see engagement with the apparent intent to provoke a negative response, which has been mildly successful. It may not be trolling by the strictest dictionary definition, but it's close enough that the distinction is largely trivial. Even giving a massive benefit of the doubt that that was somehow not the intent, it still comes off as a very minor and petty thing to bring to ANI. Sjakkalle doesn't look too good in being attached to all this, but to his credit he seems to want Toccata to drop it, which is wise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• • MONGO: I can't recall having previously interacted with John. I consider the rudeness that Quale and I faced improper, which is why I created this discussion (since the template warning led to no response other than "*flush*").
  • a.amitkumar: WP:CIV says: "The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact." Telling somebody that they should "fuck off" is a form of interaction.
  • Starblind: "leaving a template warning for a user who's been here since 2006 is just straight-up rude"? Since you think this issue shouldn't have been brought up here and John has "better things to do than wrangle with trolls" ([47]), what am I supposed to do? And since he's been here for so long, isn't he expected to know how to behave?
  • "but bringing up an old, closed issue" – again, see [48]. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop poking the bear. If someone is a prolific editor, instead of dropping a template you can leave them a personalized note that you've worded yourself addressing your concerns. And finally, what administrative action are you seeking? 192.76.82.89 (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Toccata, you templated an established user over a complete non-issue. If anything, the "flush" edit summary you got was extremely gentle, many editors here would have torn you a new one. Your actions here come off at best like unwanted nannyism and at worst like authentic trolling. Neither scenario is especially positive for you and I would suggest thinking hard about the likely outcome before undertaking similar actions in the future. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Toccata, Really I would like to know what admin action are you expecting here. The F word has almost turned colloquial nowadays instead of an insult. The editor thinks you are a troll, he reacted. Now do you have justifications that this is not trolling, you go to a editor and post this insult and you expect a good decent reply which this post did not deserve (I don't think he being experienced or being here before Jesus was born makes any difference). The initial post which John reacted/reverted itself was a personal attack and something that should not have been on the talk page and did not follow the recommendations for dispute resolution as per the same civility policy that you are trying to point every time. Johns questions on a persons competence is not a personal attack and I see it pretty polite and totally not rude.I would suggest you to drop the stick here.  A m i t  웃   14:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and well said. Sticks not dropped oft' turn into boomerangs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"I see it pretty polite and totally not rude." Give me a fucking break. (It's extremely clear John was pissed about Sjakkalle's close and in addition to John's professional assessment of the action and queries to Sjakkalle, included more than one unfair and sarcastic comments. I don't know why Quale took as long as he did to show his distaste, but it is equally clear Quale was riled by said sarcastic comments and left remarks defending Sjakkalle as well as Quale's own sarcastic comment for John. Toccata's involvement then was unwise since steam was already blown off by the parties and anything further would just go downhill further. Toccata appears to take WP:CIV at face value and can't be faulted re WP:BOOMERANG unless you are taking position his messages to John were intentionally baiting. Questioning Toccata re what sanction he sought in this thread is illogical since it presupposes his conclusion John violated CIV, but Toccata hasn't asserted that if you read this thread he has asked community assessment of same. Toccata has put his complete position above and any further questions of him can be nothing but baiting at that point. He is not the editor needing to "drop the stick". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC) p.s. Who the hell are you claiming the command "fuck off!" is now a simple colloquialism and not an insult on the English Wikipedia?? Please go tell that to User:SarahStierch so the Teahouse can inform all new editors who happen there what to expect. (Let's get some consensus on the matter, or shut the hell up pretending we are community spokespersons or Lords of the English Language.) You've pissed me off with that, so if you would kindly go "fuck-off!" yourself, that would be great.

I do see Toccata's comments as baiting. Ignoring the fact the original issue had settled down since the beginning of the month, he saw the initial response he got. He then chose to keep communicating in what I perceive as an antagonizing manner. The fact is both editors could have handled the issue with more maturity, but running off to tell the teacher doesn't make one more mature than the other. This should not boil down into yet another argument about whether the simple use of the word "fuck" violates the civility policy. Toccata is reporting a specific incident. What does he want done? If he wants a policy review the Incidents noticeboard is not the place for that. If he wants specific sanctions then he needs to speak up and show justification for them. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso - Just being pointy is going to get this section to gutter. None of you asking for action has yet clarified what actions you are expecting even when asking for consensus- consensus on what? Not a single response on that even after a few editors have specifically asked for that. You dont think the editor is baiting when he posts this but every one else is baiting him? Do you even follow the hyperlinks in comments? they direct you to all the diffs and conversation as it happened and all relevant policies that I am mentioning. First bring a valid non-pointy proposal and then you can ask for consensus.  A m i t  웃   12:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@A.amitkumar, you misread practically everything that was capable of being misread in my post, and I was clear enough, so it isn't my problem. "None of you asking for action" -- don't group me into that please, I objected to things said on this thread, your translation that is "asking for action" is mistaken. You misread my use of "consensus", it was about your unilateral postulating that "fuck off!" is not rude but a simple colloquialism. Before a sanction can logically be discussed, a violation of something must first be established, and that has not been done here, so, your Qs regarding "what sanctions?" are illogical as already pointed out. I never rendered any comment whatever regarding Quale's post to John except to say he left a sarcastic remark in response to sarcastic remarks, so why are you stuffing words in my mouth telling me what I think regarding it "baiting" or not?? Then you ask me if I'm even reading texts at the links when it is you, not I, that is full of miscomprehension re what is being discussed at any one point. (Insulting!) "All the relevant policies I've been mentioning", gosh, I'm not seeing you made reference to multiple WP policies, I must have missed that. This thread should have been closed long ago, your Qs of Toccata are illogical and your continued repetition of them is nothing short of baiting and not dropping the stick. He has made his complete position already thoroughly clear. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me the OP has posted a provocative comment regarding an interaction he had nothing to do with a month previous and then was surprised that he got a less-than-friendly response. Considering Toccata brought this here essentially on behalf of an editor wants nothing to do with it I'd suggest they accept that pushing what everyone else considers a fairly non-issue (John was a bit rude and perhaps over-reacted but nothing requiring admin action) isn't making them look good and put the stick down and leave it alone. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Right. A.amitkumar's "I see it pretty polite and totally not rude" and "[fuck off!] has almost turned colloquial nowadays instead of an insult" show at best lack of clue and at worst baiting. This thread is long overdue for a close. Toccata stated his position clearly and thoroughly, I explained my objections clearly and thoroughly. A.amitkumar has a stick he won't drop by irrational challenges and pressing illogical questions that can have no answer. I'm here only to straighten out shit where editors I have come to respect are mentioned, A.amitkumar is not helping he is continuing to contribute to the shit, even though that may not be his intent. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I agree here is that this thread should have been closed long back and probably it would have if you had not dropped in here with your friendly note. You need to take a step back and re-read and see who is baiting and who is not not dropping the stick. This section now has become a time sink, with no actionable item, so go ahead and be as pointy as you wish. A m i t  웃   14:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

BS. (I entered the thread after your unnecessary and badgering "Toccata, Really I would like to know what admin action are you expecting here. The F word has almost turned colloquial nowadays instead of an insult. [...] I see it pretty polite and totally not rude.") Good luck with your stated plans to continue frequenting the ANI cesspoolboard to "help Admins out". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

While I'm not sure I'd call it 'pretty polite', mere use of everyday curse words such as fuck have never been by themselves actionable on Wikipedia... and good thing too, or we'd have to ban the hundreds of editors who've contributed to the fuck article, for a start. Every now and then someone tries to effectively outlaw cursing on WP (such as a 2010 attempt by the now-banned editor Basket of Puppies) and consensus is always hugely against it. Of course calling someone a "fucking bastard" would be uncivil, for example, but in that case the uncivil part is the insult bastard, not the fucking. Everyday usage, such as fuck off, fucking up, oh fuck, fuck it, etc are not actionable and unless the culture here massively shifts toward censorship, probably never will be. Add this to the fact that John was merely reacting after being baited, and this whole thing has been one pitiful excuse for an ANI complaint. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Itsbydesign

I am starting this post because user Itsbydesign (talk · contribs) has presented a months-length repeated behaviour of slow edit warring and ownership of tour articles. This pattern goes back many months back, and by only checking his contributions, a glance of the problem can be verified. The modus operandi of Itsbydesign looks pretty straightforward: He appears once or twice a month, only to revert every tour article he has edited to his last version. Examples of this can be verified at this The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour edit reverted by Adabow (talk · contribs) today, or this edit to The Truth About Love Tour, reverted by Status (talk · contribs).

This is just a mere example of a problem that has been happenning for months. For example, prior to today, the user did the same on July 6, reverting three times (without leaving an edit summary) on Dance Again World Tour, as well as on The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour. He did the same on June 22, June 7 on The Truth About Love Tour and Diamonds World Tour, June 2, etc. He is supposedly "updating boxcore", but what he really does is to change tables and information to his own preference without seeking consensus first with any of the other users that edit such articles, even when reverted.

Actually, when reverted, the only thing Itsbydesign does is leave a warning, like the one he left to Lolcakes25 (talk · contribs), or to Status, or to Adabow, or to Binksternet (talk · contribs). This long-term behaviour needs to end. If he wants something added to an article, he needs to discuss, specially if several users, not only one, have reverted him in the past. I seek a solution to this problem as soon as possible. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

All I do is revert edits? I guess the hundreds of articles I've created and ones I've updated from a mere paragraph mean nothing. Reverting edits means you disagree with them. If an editor chooses to blindly revert an edit without analyzation, I will revert it. Seen with The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour today, the editor claimed that references were removed when none were removed. Moving a reference from one section to another is not an example of removing a reference. Furthermore, I have discuss this issue with the edior, Status (talk · contribs) and he/she chose to ignore and delete the message from his/her talkpage. Thus, a discussion was not wanted. There are only 8 tour articles out of thousands that follow that specific format. It's been that way long before myself, Status or Hahc21 began editing Wikipedia. How is this my personal preference? No other editor has followed in presenting tour dates/box office data in that format. There is no guarantee that every single concert's box office data will be reported, so why lump it all together? There is no rhyme or reasoning for doing that. Status is the only editor that follows this format, thus, he or she should have taken it upon themselves to discuss a common format change before implementing it. This became an issue with Status asked Hahc21 to step into the situation. This is when it became an issue. Creating a fuss over how to format a table is a lame edit war I choose not to participate in. This more of a case of someone sticking up for their friend. Itsbydesign (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ignore or delete your message... I replied to you... and the response is still on my talk page, so don't be spreading lies. I asked to start a conversation about it with you, and I was ignored, and you come back online almost a month later and do the same edits to the same articles, once again. You clearly will not stop changing articles to how you like them to look; you do realize that other WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and there are many different ways to do things. I have been working on Red Tour, The Truth About Love Tour and Dance Again World Tour from the bottom up and formatted each of them that way from the beginning. Yes, creating a fuss over the way to format a table is lame, so why do you continue to do it, if you think your edits are so lame?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I was supposed to be templated by Itsbydesign—it looked a mistake to me, especially since I have never edited the MDNA Tour article, just its talk page. I deleted the template and did not think about it again. Itsbydesign did not apologize or explain the action. At the MDNA Tour article, Itsbydesign move-warred with Bluesatellite in May 2012, but never discussed anything on the talk page. Because of the user's uncommunicative style interaction, and the obviously mistaken template, I did not pick up a positive impression. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Itsbydesign, you're right; you didn't remove any references. Sorry, my mistake. However, you did remove several tour dates without explanation. It seems to me that you simply copied-and-pasted or reverted to a previous revision of the article before these dates were added. Furthermore, there was reformatting of dates to a personal preference. The article is about a US subject, so mdy dates are used. Adabow (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Status. I have noticed this behavior too and he has the attitude of his edits are final and correct and everyone else must obey him when in fact his edits are so disruptive and unnecessary a lot of the time, for example: his most recent edits to The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour (which all were thankfully reverted), removing multiple tour dates and changing information within the tour infobox was completely unnecessary, inaccurate and outdated. I did like mentioned above receive a "warning" from him, to which I got no reply when I contested it on his talk page. --Lolcakes25 (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am not involved in any of the pages noted above. It is interesting to note that Status is involved in at least one other battle over trivial table matters (see this discussion). It seems there is a fixation that certain relatively minor details must be done his way – period. The changes made to the table seemed to detract from the Timberlake article, so perhaps Itsbydesign has some concerns about the constant reversion of his changes to the articles listed above. In this case it is a protracted dispute, but when the edit/revert——edit/revert——edit/revert cycles keep happening it is disingenuous to claim that only one of the involved editors is edit warring. Itsbydesign definitely needs to make an effort to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page, rather than continually re-inserting text, although if the Timberlake talk page is any indication I don't hold out much hope for a collegial response. Taroaldo ✉ 06:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have been trying to talk to Itsbydesign (talk · contribs) about this issue, but am constantly ignored (and I'm not the only one, as noted above). It's clearly just not gonna happen. And not because of me, thank you very much. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access of blocked socks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Today, User:Ranleewright posted this on his talk page. I have never e-mailed this user. A quick look at his user page does not even show a link where Wikipedians could send e-mail even if they wanted to. If he is referring to the automatic e-mail notifications Wikipedia sends out when talk page content has been changed (which are obviously not sent from individual users), he should refer that technical question to an appropriate area at the Village Pump. In my view, this is a sad attempt to cast aspersions, given that I initiated his SPI case. The talk page access for User:Ranleewright and sock User:Jimbob Williams should be revoked. Taroaldo ✉ 18:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've declined his unblock request and revoked his talk page access, the latter mainly for the false allegations against you, although his claim that his cousin did it is hackneyed. As an aside, you can send the user e-mail, but I believe you when you say you didn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, the cousin claim only came out when he realized retracting the legal threat would no longer be enough. As for the e-mail claim...let's just say I have had more than enough interaction with him on Wikipedia. Taroaldo ✉ 20:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The "e-mail this user" selection on the left side of the page seems to be functional (and, no, I did NOT send him an e-mail; spam from the likes of that user is the last thing I would need). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

haha I have now found the "e-mail this user" link (*slaps forehead): the only two links I have ever bothered to look at there are Recent changes and the Print/export sub-menu. I swear I'm not a noob though! Taroaldo ✉ 22:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be worried by the accusation in the slightest; that's standard Outlook/Hotmail procedure for an email address that you've not seen before, and isn't an obvious Amazon/Facebook/eBay/whatever email. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Except for the fact that there was no e-mail sent. Taroaldo ✉ 08:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• I know :) I was just pointing out that what he was trying to insinuate was completely incorrect. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Thoriq Dhiyaan Azka Rahmat

Thoriq Dhiyaan Azka Rahmat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. Reincarnation of blocked User:Thoriq Azka Rahmat, by their own admission in the first sentence at their userpage. (Edit: That user is apparently now unblocked – it was only a 1-week block. CU against unused, but recent account User:Thoriq rahmat would be a good idea, too).

2. Continues to edit-war on the same and similar pages regarding airports.

3. Claims to want to help, but doesn't seem to quite understand the roles of editors, admins, and WP policies regarding WP:RS, WP:CIVIL ([49]). Not sure if they have sufficient English skills to contribute, either.

They at least need to stop edit warring immediately, and could use a mentor from whom they will accept guidance. Or just be blocked for cause.

(Not at AIV because it's been many hours since last edit because of their time zone (UTC+3). Not at other boards because it's a combination of SPI, 3RR, and vandalism. Hope that's ok. ) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri and his method of attempting to defame (yet again)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

this editor continues to bring up issues unrelated to the topic at hand, and will not stop. He constantly makes claims of WP:BADFAITH and personal attacks, when it is he who's been doing it. I've gave him a warning several times but this time, he's done it again. shown here: [50] and i stress this isn't the first time he's done it. luckily i have access to a computer just to share this 1 quote, but i can't find the rest of the others this editor does. I'm tired of it, and i'm tired of ANI ignoring the things he does.Lucia Black (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Lucia Black, your longstanding grudge against this other editor is clear for all to see, and in my opinion, you would be well advised to ignore the other editor and focus on other things. Continued repetition of your complaints on various administrative noticeboards is unlikely to result in an outcome any different from past complaints. Please move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Time for a two-way interaction ban between both editors, anyone? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The core of the problem is a simple one, whether or not a full article can and should be devoted to the manga. A second problem exists whether or not a topic level article should be made to handle the 30 something titles, of which 8-10 do not meet N or GNG for their own pages. I want the articles at FA for the anniversary of Toren Smith's passing. I am not dealing with Ryulong or Lucia Black outside of DRN venues; as I indicated in the post she brought me to ANI for. I am serious about going to DRN, Mediation and even Arb Com to solve this situation, but she believes I do not want the problem resolved.[51] I already agreed to formal mediation, but Lucia did not file and I doubt it would be taken without a fair DRN on the matter. So I made the DRN section. This was in response to Lucia's continued WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, after discussing how her concepts of "win, lose or defeat" are "not personal". Especially concerning is: "whether i associate it with defeat and victory is none of my concern."[52] Those post she cited is me defending myself from her accusations of PAs and bad faith. I still AGF and I don't believe her editing is malicious, but it often introduces major errors or cut good content when sourcing is widely available. Our interaction should be minimal, and for at least the time being; purely at DRN venues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• I saw this and believe a two way interaction ban is best for both editors and for the community. I fully support Luke's proposal above. Nick (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• On an interaction ban: both users are (or at least were) pretty active in the same articles and talk pages. WP:IBAN forbids either of them to respond to the other's comments. This will, undoubtedly, make for some difficult discussions. That's not to say there shouldn't be an IBAN, but I am wondering what its effect will be in those discussions. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Perhaps a topic ban for one editor or the other is in order instead of, or in addition to, an IBAN; but I've not looked into the dispute properly, so can't tell which is being problematic (if either are) in that regard. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

All you can see is who throws the first punch, and it's obvious is ChrisGualtieri. This editor never stays directly on topic, he always has to bring up history, and i admitted i hated this editor FOR GOOD REASON because despite his "compliments", they don't come off as real because, not too long after those compliments, he raises strong issue. I'm sick and tired of not being able to prove the comments he does directly because i have had little access to a computer, and takes too long to look for every edit he's done just to show you. But if you look in talk:Dragon Ball, you can see how EASILY irritation gets to him and brings up topics that aren't relevant. and it goes on and on and on. And i'm not the only one who has a problem with him. You can see throughout WP:ANIME how he attacks other editors aswell.Lucia Black (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

He helped me get my article to GA status in less that three days, we expanded together and we stayed on topic the entire time, we expanded it and worked night and day pursuing our goal of getting the article to GA hes a productive and efficient editor in my opinion. Prabash.Akmeemana 01:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Prabash, it doesn't matter who he gets along with, if there is anyone out there that he doesn't get along with, it's going to be more valid. When it comes to anime and manga, this editor simply gets too bias. And you're bias yourself, don't you remember how you even got to know him in the first place? It's too bias to mention your personal (yet minor) experience. Right now taking account of the bad is more important than taking account of the "good". He helps who he chooses, and i admit i hate this editor, but i know how to not let it bother me, and this editor continues to throw it in my face. Think he's a productive and efficient editor? No one is denying that, but the ability to take wevery discussion personally? Thats what counts.Lucia Black (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

And that's why Lucia Black is a disruptive presence: some unqualified and unproven claim that Chris always starts it, followed by a semi-coherent rant ("it's going to be more valid"? what is?) that typically includes the statement that one way or another diffs cannot be provided. What Chris is supposed to do with wevery discussion (take it personally? or not?) is not clear, though it is pretty clear that the first person to claim Chris is a helpful editor gets his ass chewed out ("and you're bias yourself").

ANI sees this periodically, and I suppose it will continue until someone presses that block button for longer than I did--for disruption and personal attacks and frivolous threads, maybe. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long post, but if you want an understanding of the origin and nature of the entire matter, please read it in full. Our first interactions at Talk:Ghost_in_the_Shell/GA1 is rather indicative of the entire matter you see here today. I took the GAN for Ghost in the Shell because it is something I know extremely well, and I professed my affinity for it. Its philosophy, symbolism and even base details are all critically analyzed by scholars, with essays and sections of books dedicated to it.[53][54] And I know the material extremely well as a result of this interest. Lucia took issue with that knowledge and affection as a claim of “bias” in her second response, ever, to me.[55] She raised the issues with my "bias" at multiple venues at once, [56] and even using (EMERGENCY) in the title at the Wikiproject.[57] A second opinion was made by user Aircorn, who suggested failing the article. Another editor Niemti would later add additional comments for its failure. For more reasons then I care to list, the GA was a complete and utter disgrace which couldn't even get the plot summary right, had vast amounts of incorrect assertions, bad prose, OR and Synthesis and Lucia's axing of good content. Let's be clear; Lucia hates me, as she admits here. The original content dispute is exceedingly simple; but it is hard to improve content when it gets moved, altered and cut down. I can and have proven myself capable of adding detailed production and critical analysis of the material to topics. The most recent is the entire production section at Ghost in the Shell (film).[58] I can do this for each title of the property; but every time I make changes they are “fancruft” or gets deleted including a list of artbooks and official works. I want DRN to handle the content dispute over whether or not the international bestseller mangas warrant their own page, but I think that a one-way interaction ban (Lucia's comments towards me) be considered until she can get over her professed hatred. Over a month ago she professed, “I hate [Chrisgualtieri], and I hate [Chrisgualtieri] with a passion. I see [Chrisgualtieri]'s name on my talkpage and I see red.”[59] (Note: “that editor” is swapped with my name for context here) And given how she feels over a month later, I doubt Lucia will be feeling any more friendly in the foreseeable future. I'm not going to feed her hatred, and I probably shouldn't defend myself so vigerously, but I'm all but compelled to voice my side or be swept up in the drama. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban, but honestly more because of how Lucia handles herself in the discussions. Kind of a boomerang if you ask me, but boh editors are more productive when not interacting... Sergecross73 msg me 04:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Having watched and been involved in a few disputes and discussions with Lucia, I've always had concerns about the tone and attitude (as well as quality of language), and this is yet one more example. See previous discussion, and few sections down in the same archive. It led to a block and a community-suggested break. Chris is not blameless but the issues are evident; I considered the potential for a one-way IBAN but the AN/I discussions I linked to above reassured me that it can only be helpful for Chris also. Obviously support an indefinite interaction ban, and in addition, a narrow topic ban from Ghost in the Shell topics, which seems to be the core of their dispute, as per the concerns raised above by @Drmies:; I worry than any IBAN is doomed to failed if not accompanied by a narrow TBAN of the main dispute. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Uh "It led to a block and a community-suggested break." Huh? This never happened to either Lucia or me from any ANI. The "Wikihounding" section was made by a troll who was blocked, I didn't sock and Lucia didn't sock.[60] Other ones popped up like User:Lucia Block and such. Please don't confuse those with us; I've not been blocked and I don't sock. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for allowing me to clarify. In regards to the AN/I thread, Lucia was blocked. After further verification, I'll admit there doesn't seem to have been a significant break. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia should ideally be decided on the merits of arguments and I wanted a process to be followed, but it has not yet been done. Of the 8 other editors who commented on the GITS matter, many shared my views, but they were drowned out in the discussion. I've begged to work together on this; I've begged for assistance with the RFC and DRN... I'm still begging that someone here can sit us down, make a call and we will be bound to accept it, because both of us have agreed to mediation. I'll be indebted to you regardless of the decision you make; I need someone to make the final choice that is not me or Lucia Black on the GITS matter.I'd even propose a single 2k word argument to represent each parties side because debate back and forth is utterly pointless. Barring that, I have planned to do two pages in my sandbox to deal with the topic-level and manga page. It would take me some time, but I will be glad to provide the sandboxes as evidence of my assertions under N, GNG, and SS. Even if the decision will require a GA or FA level article before my page goes live, the mere promise that a professional article can exist after reaching such a point will allow me complete such a mammoth undertaking. Also, given my expressed desire for GA and FA hopes, I'd hate to be punished for striving for accuracy and correctness and completeness of the material. Any editor willing to do this will have my full support and cooperation and deepest thanks. Please do not dismiss this plea; I've tried to make peace with Lucia, three times in fact, even Drmies saw the last of these efforts. I cannot solve this by myself; I desperately need assistance and Lucia too seems to want this resolution. Please help us resolve it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• It does not look like this is something ANI can solve because of the interwoven content and personality disputes [61]. Given the shared interests of the two editors, an interaction ban will only add to the drama another procedural layer. So, I suggest taking this case to Arbcom, even though their track record lately seems to be poor. (The Tea Party case appears to have been dragging its feet for something like six months!) Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  I've been kind of avoiding this but I should point out Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Ghost in the Shell, List of Ghost in the Shell chapters is still current. If that cannot solve things then ArbCom is obviously the next step.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

My "Hate" for this editor, is completely true. Whenever a discussion is made, no matter HOW neutral i try to be, he makes quick accusations, he brings up topics that aren't even related to the subject just to defame, and this is when he doesn't get his way as you can see in talk:Dragon Ball. I'm not the one trying to bring up "Hate" constantly in a discussion, he's the one bringing it up. this editor always changes topic, he deliberately tries to make things personal and you can see it constantly throughout WT:ANIME. And these things happen BEFORE i proclaimed my hate. And whatever "peace" he attempts, doesn't come off as genuine. He makes compliments right after insults and vice versa. so his compliments or any praise don't come off as genuine, they just come off as insulting. User Drmies seeing whether or not Chris tried to make peace may not be completely true, and i know I've accused someone else of bias in this discussion, but this one seems much more apparent. For example: When an editor claimed to be ChrisGualtieri. it would be BADFAITH to assume it was someone else's sock, so why would Drmies come to me and tell me something insulting? He didn't need to give his opinion of me, nor did he have to give me a warning for something that can be completely justified. If someone claimed to make an alternate user, would you believe it the first time it happens? [62][63] And it doesn't help that this editor tries to use the same accusations Drmies used for 1 situation, in every new discussion. For example, constantly accusing me of WP:IDHT when there is hardly a consensus that has been reached, which WP:IDHT is heavily based on. this editor can accuse me of WP:HOUNDING as much as he likes, the discussions were made public in WP:ANIME, and for everyone to see and considering i've been active in that wikiproject, so "hounding" is HIGHLY inappropriate. Also accuses me of a liar so blatantly. He has no idea how much poison he spreads in a discussion. My hate for this editor just continues to grow, because this editor brings up things that arent relevant to the topic. ANd i could care less that i hate him, and his ways, but i warned him before DO NOT BRING UP THINGS IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION. He WANTS to defame me, and it's obvious in that edit, which i EXPECT admins will see it and remove it. Because it's not right for him to do that [64] and only poisons the discussion, and causes more hate.Lucia Black (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• There is literally nothing wrong with Chris' edit there. It's a perfectly understandable reaction to your edits. I'm beginning to think more and more that you deserve a topic ban, since it appears to be you that is the disruptive presence - and you've laden that statement above with personal attacks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You say that, but that's not true. You can see my following comment is completely CIVIL, but he does the exact opposite. What does he do Luke? Did he in fact quote me of something completely unrelated to the issue at hand? yes or no? It fathoms me, that an admin can't see what he's doing. there is no justification for that, and i WOULD never do that UNLESS it was directly related to the topic at hand. WHich in this case it's not.Lucia Black (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, Lucia's claims above are false and is just distracting drama. User:KuroiNekoko-chan made the "wikihounding" report.[65] User:Chibi Kusanagi, was similiar, but no where did this troll claim to be me despite Lucia's claim.[66] While I don't want to probe this too far, Lucia made this statement to Drmies and now at this discussion.[67] The word "lie" is indeed strong, but given the context of the event, it seemed that these false claims were knowingly used to redirect suspicion on me and protect herself. It was not the best term to use, I'll admit that, but my reasoning is likely justified. Lastly, it should also be noted that I requested Kuroi's last three edits be revdeleted because it was likely to be used to for a conspiracy - which Chibi Kusanagi referenced. Unless I am mistaken about the "deal". With that being said, please understand my frustration in dealing with Lucia and my desire to protect myself from personal attacks whose details are grossly exaggerated or unfounded. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Chris, there was no reason to mention that in said topic. You're the one trying to make things personal. It's not my fault, these issues are being brought up in WP:ANIME. But in every discussion, you always reference past encounters unrelated to the issue at hand. i'm not lying and i'm not being dramatic.Lucia Black (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: BOOMERANG topic ban for User:Lucia Black

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think it's become apparent to all that this user is an enormous time sink. They constantly drag things to ANI for invalid reasons, so I think it is time for a topic ban from both WP:ANI, and all articles related to WikiProject Anime, broadly construed, for an initial period of three months. Throwing an IBAN in here might not be a bad idea either.`

• Support as proposer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support All - She seems unable to compromise or work with others, and keeps on starting up these bogus ANI threads. I'm all for it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Lucia's level of disruption seems to far outstrip her constructive editing behaviour these days and seems to be going out of her way to pick fights that aren't needed. Canterbury Tail talk 13:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Spending an hour reading the talk pages and this grudge match I can feel the emotional heat from Lucia. Several talk page examples show User:ChrisGualtieri attempting to squash the heat repeatedly but his words are constantly twisted in attempts to make them look like personal attacks. Lucia's responses look like polished trolling and absolute refusal to stick to content discussion, IMHO. Topic ban should be preceeded with something stronger to allow this emotional level to lower some. Perhaps a 1 week ban, first? Wow! 99.251.120.60 (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Keeping alive as we need more eyes on this one. Canterbury Tail talk 16:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, Support interaction ban. Bans should not be punitive, and we should start low on the chain and work up as needed. If necessary, we can always impose a topic ban later. GregJackP Boomer! 16:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• How is this at all punitive? Lucia Black drags Chris here at the slightest opportunity, has dragged other users here inappropriately on several occasions, and there are clearly issues with their editing within the ANIME scope. You perhaps could argue a case for the latter being punitive (which I would disagree with, but let's put that to one side briefly) - but the ANI topic ban is not only preventative, it's necessary, and necessary now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• In this situation a topic ban for one party is the 'lowest' form of restriction to resolve the problem. A two way interaction ban would prevent both parties editing efficiently in the same topic area. One way bans dont work. So the least restrictive solution is to remove the source of the problem from the topic area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Interaction ban at minimum. Seems necessary at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support topic ban and and the interaction ban, draginng productive editors to AN/I is not wise considering the amount of trouble this has caused. Prabash.Akmeemana 17:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and interaction ban. Repeatedly expressing "hatred" of another editor is strong evidence that these bans are needed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban from anime & manga. Interaction ban needless as with topic ban in place, there will be zero interaction. And Chris has repeatedly, over a sustained time, attempted to work with and address issues when brought to him. Its not his problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Both Topic and interaction Ban. At least for next 3 months twenty editors would not be wasting their time.  A m i t  웃   19:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Right now, consensus for an interaction ban is pretty much watertight. Consensus for the topic ban from both ANI and the ANIME project is also quite clear as well - perhaps this should be enacted? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happier to see the discussion continue a bit more. A topic ban is a lot for a user who edits mainly in those areas, it's not something that should be implemented on the say so of only a dozen editors. While I support the ban, I'd like to see more support from other editors/administrators before we enact such a thing. Canterbury Tail talk 21:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban I don't think one way interaction bans work at all, and since they both work extensively in anime/manga related areas an interaction ban would make work difficult in the area. I think removing Lucia from editing there with a topic ban is probably the best solution. This will give things a chance to cool down and hopefully once the ban expires she'll be able to work more cooperatively without baselessly dragging others here without a solid reasoning. AniMate 02:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support (maybe I should note here I'm personally prejuiced in this case) (oh, and also that I'd probably return to editing GitS things after that) --Niemti (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Some form of interaction ban, possibly supplemented by banning from several talk pages such as WT:WikiProject Anime and manga, is evidently necessary. In the case of further problems with Lucia Black (but not before it) restrictions can be escalated up to complete ejection from here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic & interaction ban - As another editor has pointed out, an interaction ban would likely not be sufficient as they both work extensively in the same area. Keeping them appart would be like herding cats. The simple solution is to remove one editor from the area. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic & interaction ban - A very easy call per WP:BATTLE. And if this continues any further in any form, a robust preventative block. Jusdafax 12:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic & interaction ban. It is clear from the response below that Lucia Black will read any consensus here as confirmation of her conspiracy theory about ANI etc., and that's a pretty clear hallmark of battleground mentality. In addition, the proclaimed hate (with or without quotes) is evidence of the same mentality. This is taking up (yet again) a lot of space and time, here and on the project pages, and it's time for it to stop. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• A conspiracy is 1)A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. 2)The action of plotting or conspiring. So i am not making a conspiracy theory because i dont believe it's a secret plan to cause harm. I'm announcing how this could've been avoided easily if admins acted quicker to any issue (regardless of small or big) and how FLAWED ANI really is by focusing more on "how much time have we wasted dismissing these ANI to the point that ban MUST be carried out in the first place". And by act, i dont mean "ban" mean "give a warning on the spot". And you stating "taking up time" is the type of mentality that affects ANI. I've been watching ANI closely. And how much is dismissed, and how much action is taken care of.Lucia Black (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic & interaction ban: Clear disruptive behavior that continues unabated and will continue without the bans, as will wasting of time here on ANI. Massive case of WP:IDHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This wont help, and formally request a solution that allows us to edit

This is what ANI is about. Whoever ANI gathers the most attention, will act accordingly. it's not whether who is the most disruptive OUTSIDE of ANI, but who get's bothers the admins in ANI the most. Bans only solve the disruption, but not the editing. I read opposes and supports for such bans.

I report things here not to force a ban or block on someone, but to stop things from escalating as in a formal warning OUTSIDE of those who are involved and on the spot. Where were all of you when ChrisGualtieri made yet another edit war for the third time on the same subject on something he CLEARLY had no consensus on doing? it's like you all knowingly dismiss disruption. And when you dismiss it, it makes those who disrupted Wikipedia to keep doing the same thing!!! And have evidence of it. User:Lukeno94, didn't have to say my name exclusively onto the section heading if it involved Chris as well. User:Sergecross constantly violates WP:INVOLVED and doesn't necessarily follow my comments as he used to considering he edits more in WP:VG and i haven't made a single comment there in a while. And completely un-admin like to call these ANI reports "bogus". Niemti's vote admittedly is BIAS, this editor has had issues with me due to me finding a more appropriate image for an article and debating about it. This editor was subject of a topic ban AND does the same thing. Attempt to defame. ANd when i reported that, no one did anything, which is why Niemti is here again to do the exact thing i initially reported (anther sign of how ANI is severely flawed) Anonymous IP is giving just complete provoking comments.

I'm sorry for all of you who consider this a waste of your time, and perhaps this is a sign of how truly flawed ANI really is. And I'm seeing more and more how less involved admins are and how editors aren't balanced about their votes. I'm sorry, but it is NOT ok to constantly bring up subjects that AREN'T related to the topic at hand just to make the other editor look bad. What's that rule that constantly comes up? Oh yes, "Keep you comments about content" and I follow that rule mostly (when it's an issue of content, o when it's obvious the editor is using personal issues against something perfectly fine, then the subject s not really about content, but within the editor.). In WT:ANIME you can see who is the first one to attack (as in bringing unrelated personal issues of this editor). It doesn't matter how you view me, If someone else is throwing the punches first, and someone reports it, who is going to act on it? My faith in the ANI system has failed. I've literally seen admins blocks without the need of ANI for much smaller things, and I've seen some ignore some heavy disruptive behavior after being reported in ANI. This ban is more about shutting me up, more than actually solving something

I REQUEST a better, more positive SOLUTION. Because this topic and interaction ban only solves one thing, me or Chris NOT coming to you guys at ANI (which in this case, if you don't want to get involved, don't answer, but thats what caused this in the first place: Trying a little too had to perform any administrative action on the spot). I really don't want this, all i wanted was a fair warning for disruptive behavior on the spot. But if this is a viable third solution, i request some form of mediation between chris and I. I truly detest this editor, but now i see its ANI who has not only failed me, but Chris as well. And just to be clear, I'm not the only one who thinks that, i see other ANI entries who have it worst with little to no action.Lucia Black (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• This wall of text is only going to emphasize the validity of the topic ban. Why is your name in the section above? Because it's about you, and sanctions for your disruptive behaviour. Chris is not being disruptive. When will this sink in? Attacking everyone who raises issues with your conduct is a one-way trip to sanctions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

But you haven't actually "proven" it. Just stating it, doesn't make it true. And by what stance do you consider disruptive? You're practically PROVOKING me to use WP:POINT by acting the same way Chris does in an argument, which will hurt me, but prove my point regardless. You see nothing wrong with bringing up unrelated issues just to make the other editor look bad? Constant edit was he clearly had no consensus of doing?

Just to make sure. I'm going to bring an entire series of conversations, and you tell me how he's NOT being disruptive, and how I am.Lucia Black (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, this topic isn't about Chris, an Chris should not be mentioned. It's about you. Stop trying to prove others are disruptive or use others as excuses, you should be explaining to us why you shouldn't be topic banned and using your behaviour, not trying to deflect onto others. If you continue this then you will definitely be topic banned. This thread is solely about you, don't bring others into it. Canterbury Tail talk 18:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Lucia, every single thing you add here is disruptive, because you misrepresent what other people say, either deliberately, or due to a lack of competence. The fact that not a single person has opposed any kind of sanction on you speaks volumes. I don't need to prove anything; you've proved it all yourself, and I'm not remotely provoking you. Everything I've said is correct, and appears to be based by a consensus; the same can't be said for you. And this disruptive subthread is precisely why I asked for this to be closed yesterday; yet since then, the consensus has swung even further away from you. To any uninvolved admins: - can we have this actioned on now please, to prevent more disruptive behaviour? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Canterbury Tail, but the boomerang issue is still under Chris (that i brought up). Luke said Chris isn't being disruptive, so my response is obviously going to be how he is. And i'm proving how things get escalated quickly, and how ANI focus on what they want to focus on, not what needs to be done. Topic ban me, but it only shows how one-sided things really are, and your comment again continues to prove this is more of an issue of WP:ANI simply not wanting to hear it rather than actually finding a solution that actually solves anything. And this is common with Admins, i once brought up something to an admin and was about to get dismissed until he actually listened to what the issue was about. I brought up 3 edit wars here over the same issue. 2 years ago or maybe 1 year ago, that would've been taken care of easily (regardless if that editor claimed to have wanted to discuss it after the ANI). You can accuse me of everything you see fit, but i wont let it slide that Chris is seen as a saint and gets not even a warning. The ONLY thing that can be viable is that I admit to having negative feelings toward this editor and I've brought more ANI's about him than me. And i seem to recall, another editor placed an ANI against him, but was dismissed because it involved me. So maybe that's just it? Rather conspiracy-like of me to say, but it leads me to ask, why are these ANI reports, dismissed so easily without even a hint of reasoning?

I dont take this too personal, but i find it heavily reliant on who's posting ANI reports than what the issue is. It has been mentioned before in Village pump how quickly things get dismissed just by focusing on the reputation of that editor rather than actually focusing on what that editor is saying. I previously reported how an editor was quick to spread bad rep of me. 1 editor dismissed it because he believed it was well-deserved. And after that, no matter how much i commented about it, the discussion was closed without answer. How is this ANI or previous ani reports closures fair? Honestly, no matter how much i begged for this not to happen or look for a more positive solution, no one here has given me a reason to objectively look at what have to show.

• [68] Here, he had no business at all mentioning me and completely inaccurate. would've let it slide if this was on a talkpage, but it's public and most of all, i wasn't even involved. How is that civil?

• WT:ANIME#XXXX in anime I've attempted to STOP discussing considering there is an RfC for other editors, and Chrisi attempts to bring up something completely irrelevant to the issue and attempts to make things personal. Constantly misusing WP:BADFAITH. also blatantly calls me a liar and states that I've lied multiple times before.

• talk:Dragon Ball#RfC: Is it relevant to demerge Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z as separate articles? again, a rather neutral comment (and this was still before i detested this editor), and attempts to make yet another personal attack.

• talk:Lightning (Final Fantasy) and WT:ANIME#XXXX in anime constantly accusing me with WP:IDHT, which is heavily dependent on consensus (something he didn't have in neither discussion). It's like if im accusing him of being WP:INCOMPETENT in every discussion regardless of the subject. It's not civil at all to use.

• WT:ANIME#Same issue thats plagued this entire year. Ghost in the Shell manga/franchise pagemust i even try to explain the number of issues here? This editor quickly makes it personal. Not that it's about "content" but the claims this editor makes is constantly about how well informed he is about a subject rarther than bringing up issues. and it shows i'm not the only one.Lucia Black (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Item 1: Given its location, you could be presumed to be watching the thread. That shows you in far worse a light than him. Item 2: You called for the speedy deletion of something Chris wrote; anything that resulted in that thread can be blamed on you. Particularly as speedy deletion would've been inappropriate. Item 3: Chris starts off with the negativity, but again, you're hardly a saint there. Chris' isn't being disruptive; although he didn't really need to bring that particular bit up. Item 4: WP:IDHT could've been written for you. Care to add anything else that further emphasizes that you are the problem? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

1) I've been watching the entire wikiproject's talkpage as much as any member. would've noticed eventually considering the size wasn't too long, that doesn't paint me in a far worse light. and not the point 2) How is that a valid reason??? Are you actually looking at this objectively? I didn't speedily delete them, placed an RfC for them so that it can be viewed more objectively. The issue was still whether they were encyclopedic or not which could be deleted or merged. Right now, you're just trying to excuse Chris by something that wasn't disruptive at all. Are you sayng that if someone requested speedliy delete an article you wrote, whatever you say, it's on them???? 3) Of course I'm no saint, no one in this ANI report is, but i'm not the one who starts it. And thats what i'm emphasizing here. 4)That's not very civil of you to say. and most of all, still have not disproves a single thing that I brought up. its painfully obvious what you're doing. still haven't bought up the 3 edit wars, manly because they were dismissed by previous ANI.Lucia Black (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You know what. do what you want. I'm far too tired of this. Do what you want, i'm taking a wikibreak because of family-related issues and have no time, to discuss whats painfully obvious.Lucia Black (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't/haven't violated WP:INVOLVED because I didn't/haven't ever taken administrative action towards you. I've merely given my two cents on you, which I feel is warranted, as I have experienced the complaints against you both first and second hand with your behavior on Wikipedia. Other than that, I second Lukeno's request for an uninvolved admin to wrap this up. There's almost unanimous support for the bans, and yet all Lucia is willing to talk about is how it's "painfully obvious" she's in the right here. There's a lack of self-awareness here; if she doesn't get it yet, I don't know what further discussion is going to get us... Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I second all that Sergecross73 stated above. Lucia, if you have personal issues to attend to just state it (you just did, I believe) let things cool down, and let people, and yourself, forget about this, giving yourself a break. Whatever the result, not inflaming the situ here would probably be best. Best to you. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Giving your opinion as an admin tho, but do what you want. Eveything i brought up is relevant tho. but it doesn't matter to you guys. You dont care right? I've already been advised how ANI is useless, and is only going to ruin my experience of wikipedia. so do what you want, it's already too late right? i have real issues outside WP so i'll be gone for a long time. Yes, I'm aware of how ironic IDHT is here, but then again, all ii have is to prove how things really.Lucia Black (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Whiggsgerm

User created a new account and used their Talk page to make an entry in German that appears to be an attack page, complaining about inappropriate treatment at German wikipedia. I initially nominated for speedy deletion and the tag was repeatedly deleted, however as it is not perfectly clear to me what the page says, I am listing here for review. This is a diff of the content. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Pretty clear violation of WP:POLEMIC. Even if their concerns are valid, and I'm certainly not saying that they are, it's pointless to post them here as the English Wikipedia doesn't have any special dominion over what goes on at the German one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not true. There is no polemic, there is no insult and there is no attack but only a copy of a page for memorizing to me. I repeatedly wrote to Flat Out, that there is no complaining or attack. I could not understand, why he is repeatetly spreading this untruth. Whiggsgerm (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

From WP:OWNTALK: ".... the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." The talk page is not there for you, it's there for other members of English Wikipedia to communicate with you about your edits here. The purpose of your talk page is certainly NOT to preserve "a copy of a page for memorizing to me". You need to download it and save it to a Word document or similar, or save it to the Cloud, or email it to yourself. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• It's not an attack page, it's a request to have an indefinite block on the German WP overturned, including a request for sanctions against a couple of admins there (I've taken a look at what is behind this on the German WP, including reading the ANI-case about user BrummTiger, which is the user account that this is really about, and it seems like he might have a reason for complaining, having been unfairly treated there, including being blocked indefinitely for dubious reasons). But a user talk page on the English WP is hardly the right place for filing such a complaint. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• I made this advisory edit to the talk page, but my comments have been removed, as have those of the complainant here. I'm not comfortable with dealing with this myself since I have no German Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comments are still there, at the top of the page. Whiggsgerm (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A friendly advice to @Whiggsgerm: Move the German language text to a new subpage of your user talk page to avoid more problems/conflicts. If the text is only a personal reminder/memo, as you claim, it could just as well be kept on a subpage. If you don't move it, it will be seen as an attempt to seek a conflict here, and you will find yourself in trouble here too. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like there's more going on here. he appears to have been locked out of de:wikipedia, with email disabled. this is what he's complaining about . My German isn't great either, hence the translation (Bing may be a bit better for this ).

He appears to be trying to right a great wrong from the German Wikipedia. I'd suggest removing his German notice from his page and locking it as well based on what i saw in the above report. I won't touch it due to voluntary restrictions  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a painful fact that there is next to nothing that the many smaller wikis users can do nada if they have a disagreement with the admin. You can try to talk to the Stewards but they'll just tell you to sort it out with the local Admins, but they already hate you so what can you do? It's a dead loop that kills off contributors to these smaller wikis. You have to agree with the Admins or not be allowed to edit and these guys know that higher powers won't intervene. Oftentimes what the Admins say is good and right but what about those times when the Admin is wrong? MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 12:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I would hardly classify the German Wikipedia as a "smaller wiki": by some measures, it's the second-largest after the English Wikipedia. If none of the 261 admins there is willing to unblock, it's a good sign that it's the user, not the community, that's in the wrong. --Carnildo (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Page move without discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Earlier today, Dan56 moved the film article Out of Sight to Out of Sight (1998 film), stating in his edit summary that there is no primary topic. Though I have no doubt his edits were well-intended, I still object to this page move and request that the article be moved back until a page move discussion can take place. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to say that I agree with the move, 100% ... because "Out of sight" means something completely different to me, so the disambig makes sense (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that warrants administrator intervention. I do hope a gnome has checked the inbound links to Out of Sight and moved them to the new page target, though, if the links were meant to refer to the 1998 film. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree, it's a good move. Dan's comment wasn't that there is no primary topic, but rather that the 1998 film wasn't it - and, factually, he seems to be correct. There is no administrator action warranted here. That said - TheOldJacobite, if you have a counter proposal as an alternative to the move/disambiguation, I'd suggest posting it at Talk:Out of Sight (disambiguation). You might consider asking Dan to discuss it there, along with other editors involved in the topic area. But I don't think reverting the move is justified at this point. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(I've also notified Dan56, as required by this noticeboard's rules.) UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

...this is at ANI because...? GiantSnowman 18:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Because I haven't said "f-you" to anyone yet today...any volunteers? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Stats tool has thousands of visits for the film, barely hundreds for most of the others. I even went back to last year in case the hits were generated by the recent death of actor Dennis Farina. Nope, the same. But this isn't a topic for this board, it's a page move debate better held at WP:RM. I'm reverting per WP:BRD and that debate can happen in the appropriate venue. Gamaliel (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• There are two options, both at WP:RM. Undiscussed moves can be requested undone so that they can be discussed, in the Technical moves section, and a Requested move can be opened (on the article talk page), to discuss the name of the article. Apteva (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel, why on Earth did you revert that when consensus is clearly in favor of the move? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on the criteria at Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC. Consensus is not a vote and policy-based arguments are always given more weight. Regardless, this is going to involve a full move discussion and final decision at the proper venue anyway, so what the title is now doesn't matter much. Also, Dan56 hadn't fixed any of the incoming wikilinks yet, so might as well have them all point to the proper article until a final decision is determined. Gamaliel (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Keeping the pictures in Desire's article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi! I need some help here User:Werieth is deleting the pictures that were posted to Desire (Geri Halliwell song)

• The first picture is alternate single cover which is completely different to the 1st single cover that was posted in the infobox.
• The second picture is the DVD single cover which is placed in a different infobox.
• The third picture is a music video screenshot which is related to the music video section.

I don't see any reason to remove those pictures. Since they serve their purpose very well.

User:Werieth also threatened me of blocking - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hotwiki#July_2013

--SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• He's absolutely correct, and I have removed the images again. An article about a single doesn't need five non-free usages (including the music sample, which I'd argue doesn't meet Wikipedia:NFC#Audio_clips either). Each needs to be justified per all the criteria of WP:NFCC, of which one is minimal usage. Black Kite (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• What Black Kite says. If you had read the policy linked above and in one of Werieth's edit summaries you'd know that by now. You can't just copy and paste stuff from all over the internet into Wikipedia articles. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like this isn't the only article, either; the user has uploaded a lot more alternate covers and video stills for pop music items (the latter almost never meet WP:NFCC unless the video itself is particularly notable). See, for example, Tell Me (Melanie B song). Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe you and Werieth can go alternate cover hunting in the field of K-pop. You won't be disappointed. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I learnt a long time ago that if anything is more likely to make you go "y'know what, fuck this" about Wikipedia it's trying to enforce NFCC in pop culture articles. I pretty much lost the enthusiasm for it around the 1,000th insult (and the fact that most other admins, understandably, run away from those issues like someone just took the stopper out of a test-tube of Ebola). Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Well go ahead, remove those pictures. The thing is those music video stills were uploaded to showcase the music video. And I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that as long as the alternate cover is different to the first single cover, it can be included in the article. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Alternate album covers can sometimes be allowed; it depends if they pass all the criteria of NFCC - which means critical commentary of the actual cover itself. They shouldn't be used just to show "another different cover exists". Video clips, as I mentioned above, really do need to be notable in themselves. The one I mentioned above is just another photo of the singer. It wouldn't be allowed in the article about Mel B herself, so it definitely shouldn't be here. Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Go ahead delete it now, if you think thats the right thing to do and the music video screenshot that I uploaded to the Desire song article has a caption that is related to what is written in the music video section.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well that's actually the problem, to an extent - the image doesn't show anything that isn't explained in the text - we don't need a non-free picture of Halliwell waking up in the morning to illustrate the fact that the video shows her waking up (WP:NFCC#1 is relevant here). As I said, if a video still is showing something genuinely notable about the video (or the video itself is notable and sourced as such) then it may pass, but most don't. Black Kite (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• And someone could close this now, as no admin action is being requested. Discussion could continue elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unhelpful IP editor

For the past week or so, someone on Hanaro Telecom in Seoul (dynamic IP) has been making a series of unnecessary changes ot several articles. In the past 24 hours, he has been edit warring at Super Sentai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on the following IP addresses:

• 114.205.127.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.205.127.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.216.183.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

He has also edited as

• 118.216.183.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.216.183.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.205.127.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.205.127.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

He does not seem to know the proper rules and regulations or etiquette of the project and because his IP is dynamic it is hard to prevent abuse from him. As he is now edit warring, this raises other problems. I think we need to block him so we can at least stop further disruption.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

After researching the article Zord edit history, I see you have some issues there. You clearly need to read WP:OWNERSHIP. Many details and additions have been attempted by various editors and you have just reverted them all. Perhaps if you supply specific diffs that you are concerned about, other editors can zero in on your problem. This article seems particularly specific in interest to editors of this geographic area and of course they would use similar IPs. I see no abuse or editwarring in this article other than multiple complaints on the talk page regarding yourself since May 2013. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

After further reading of the Zord talk page I have noticed your edits can be very nasty, insulting, and rude to other editors there. I don't know if this is classic behavior on your part in other articles but with 15 seconds of reading your own talk page I found this with another editor complaining of the same attitude. I would find it very disturbing to have my length of appearance here used to win a content dispute ridiculing my opinion. How is it related to accuracy? Perhaps a wikiBreak could help somewhat for you to respond in a less aggressive manner in content discussions? 99.251.120.60 (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

None of these concerns of yours, all of which have been addressed by now, have anyhing to do with the issue at hand. That diff you attempt to link to I immediately apologized for, and the issues at Talk:Zord have also been addressed as evident from the talk page.

And it is quite obvious that the operators of these IP addresses I listed above are all the same individual. The first three listed all perform the same edit and act as if they are the same person by intending to put the exact same information onto the page.

You seem to be very knowledgeable about Wikipedia considering these two comments here are the only ones that have ever been made from this particular IP address. That in itself seems a little suspicious.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

When were you going to notify any of these editors of your attempted case against them? This seems like the same consideration given all your "conquests" and another example of your lack of consideration towards other editors. Your talk page alone is enough evidence you need a kick in the pants for your behavior, foul language and bold demanding text. For example: in response to a question of you

...if I institute a spelling change you better fucking accept it as having a damn good reason

Proper progressive discipline may have turned that vicious attitude towards others into a helpful co-operative editor. This should have been dealt with a long time ago. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Digging further I have come across another WP:BULLYing example from your talk page history. In article Halcyon_Days_(Ellie_Goulding_album) [69] (see history) you have clearly editwarred in your attempt to delete the article without any prior discussion and three other separate editors reverted your edits. You were warned of this on your talk page where your response was "What the eff are you doing" and removed it without any consideration. I am not sure this behavior should be tolerated from such an experienced editor here. This is the stuff that drives other editors away in droves. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have already determined that this is a dynamic IP address so it is going to be impossible to contact them in any form. Several have been left messages but it's obvious that they have not been read. Now, pardon my French, but why the fuck are you attempting to dig up all of these less than perfect instances of my behavior? Everything you're bringing up is currently being dealt with in the proper channels (apology to Saluki.N, discussion with Status). What purpose is this? And why are you acting on this from an unregistered IP address? I came here seeking assistance and it's almost as if you want me to be punished for something else. Who are you? I have the right to know because WP:SOCK says "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address" is considered a violation of said policy.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to this unnecessary sideshow, the operator of the IPs I initially reported has continued his deleterious edits as 118.217.145.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I will leave this to an admin to evaluate your WP:Ownership of these articles in the edit history of Kyoryugers and Zord. Ryulong has made hundreds of edits in these articles and about half of them have been reverts to many dozens of other editors contributions. Many of them include foul language and insulting tone in the edit histories of his reverts. It won't take long to identify this behavior. This complaint appears to be just a general content dispute with an attempt to squash contributions from these IPs. There may be some dynamically allocated multiple IP usage and language fluency problems but I see no abuse or attempt to deceive using multiple IPs (self support). I also see no attempt to resolve, help or advise any of these IP editors on personal or article talk pages. Overall behavior towards others has been atrocious, as noted above.99.251.120.60 (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously who are you and what is your beef with me?—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am just a drive-by editor, part of a study of the process on WP:AN(I). I have never used a named account and randomly researched your claims about an alleged multiple IP abuser. The case attracted me due to a complaint from an editor with so much experience claimed and yet cannot provide any diff evidence. Some sample results of my simple research are stated above. I have had no previous contact with any of the IPs or yourself and certainly have no bias against you. You have dedicated a lot of your own time for the project. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Diff evidence seems unnecessary when the IP addresses only possess a total of 20 edits between the 8 of them. And I find your story very hard to believe.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Page is protected as of 27-jul-2013, is there any other issue needing ANI assistance? If this above discussion is not part of the context of the ANI then both should probably leave this page now.  A m i t  웃   15:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

  The IP is still causing problems on countless other pages as 118.217.145.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"countless other pages". This IP has only done 7 edits total. I see no problems but rather an editor attempting to improve articles that neither of you have provided any references for. To me these articles could be cut down to a simple paragraph or two, like most movies, but then I am not a cartoon watcher. We need an admin to do a quick reviewing the nonexistent edits being whined about. This fakery is a waste of ANI time and very disruptive to Wikipedia. After all this Wikipedia experience (since Feb. 2006 and 179K edits!) this editor doesn't seem to be aware of content discussion or etiquette. Watch out for WP:BOOMERANG. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if preventing unhelpful and unconstructive edits such as "This is the first time in the game the main protagonists were actually talk." or requesting assistance with an IP hopper who was repeatedly edit warring on what was at the time an unprotected page are a waste of ANI time. You have been of no help in this and all you have been doing is essentially trying to turn this thread into a WP:BOOMERANG issue on unrelated topics on which anything you've pointed out were resolved. I still seriously doubt your claim that you have had no prior experience with Wikipedia. You seem to be able to gather a lot of information that the casual IP editor would have no knowledge of.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to make you realize that what you are complaining about is mostly what you have put out. I see examples of you as editwarring, spewing insulting tone out at other editors in your edits and ownership of articles that you have worked so hard on since 2006. Just look at your own talk page and edit history of same. Look at your behavior here (ANI). No AGF when you basically stated I was lying.[[70]] You have been requested to supply some diffs by two editors for your complaint but we still see only grossly exaggerated claims.[[71]][[72]]

Here (ANI) you need to get more specific with what and where you are claiming these policy violations, other than he edited your article. Also it may be necessary to see where you have addressed these issues with this participating editor. You haven't done any of this, here. I have spent hours researching this problem after seeing nothing of what you claimed and only an overly aggressive editor. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I crossed out "countless" as you are right that was an exaggeration and I do not have to believe what you say about yourself considering the time and energy you are expending in order to turn this report into a WP:BOOMERANG situation, but please respond to me below.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there a specific set of pages or a topic/category that this these IPs is messing up? That might help the admin to take appropriate action if needed.  A m i t  웃   12:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

He seems to be centering on articles within Category:Super Sentai and its subcategories (episode lists and character lists). He's made a few other edits to other pages, but they're all generally coming from a single IP now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• If Ryulong cannot supply any diffs to substantiate his unspecific claim(s), I suggest that an admin close this discussion. This case appears to be a clear attempt at WP:OWNERSHIP of articles (please examine edit history) to "clear the playing ground". We have a dynamic IP editor, that hasn't exhibited perfect English grammar, but raising this issue here, with no previous attempted communication with the editor on the issues or policies, is a complete waste of other contributor's time. Heck the IP has not even been notified by this experienced editor making this report. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

  Editors operating solely from dynamic IP addresses cannot be adequately communicated with. If you hadn't begun trying to turn this report against me no one's time would have been wasted. In fact the only time you are wasting is yours and mine. a.amitkumar has responded only twice.

  But here are diffs of edit warring ([73] [74] [75]), poorly formatted and worded unconstructive edits ([76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]), generally unconstructive but good faith edits ([84] [85] [86] [87] [88]). I've listed eight total IPs above. Do you really expect that I should have to contact each and every one of them and notify them of this discussion when for all I know he could have stopped editing as any particular one of them? Regardless, I've made an attempt to push them in a better direction.

  And now the issue returns back to yourself, 99.251.120.60. I still find your story that you are just some observer of this website hard to believe. No one who has not been on this project before would spend as much time as you claimed you have done in order to get me in trouble. I know my reputation precedes me both on Wikipedia and in the people who would be interested in this topic area. There are dozens of threads on fan forums complaining about the level of editorial influence I have on these articles because I want to prevent insider fan information that fails WP:RS and WP:V from being pushed on them and I attempt to push for proper sourcing of everything. Now from your edits to other discussions on this page, it does not seem you are of the second group, the fans who for whatever reason I have pissed off by simply editing this project. So that leaves the situation that you are someone who has previously been on this project that I have been in opposition with and are either logged out from your account to avoid scrutiny or you are someone who has been blocked or banned from editing through some association with myself. Now which is it?—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP talk page being used for defamation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Talk:Sting has some revisions in its history that probably should be deleted because of BLP concerns. This would be a good example. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That's very funny. My favorite part is another editor asking the IP if they have any reliable sources in support of the claim. It's a silly statement. Besides, it was never removed, and it was moved to the archives, so revdel'ing it would be a pain. Not needed or worth it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, he's a real rabble-rouser, that Sting guy. Wherever shit's happening to someone in the world, you'll find him in the middle of it. Kind of like seeing firefighters whenever you see a fire. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of the TV advert where the insomniac with anxiety thinks "Maybe the hokie-pokie is what it's all about?" :) 99.251.120.60 (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Oh Yeaaahh creating many short unsourced articles and not responding to talk page requests

Over the past few days, Oh Yeaaahh (talk · contribs) has created 34+ short, unsourced articles, mostly about train stations. They have not responded to multiple communication attempts and warnings. This may be a promotion only account, or a well intentioned editor; it's difficult to tell because there's no response. Perhaps an admin could offer them some Kool-aid and, if they still don't respond, perhaps a brief block will get their attention. - MrX 17:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Oh Yeaaahh's station articles except that he copy/pastes infoboxes & text from one to another without remembering to make the needed changes in geographical coordinates and other data. If Dr. Blofeld and others can mass-create unsourced articles consisting only of "X is a village in Y", what's the problem with these? We have articles on just about every railroad station, both current and defunct, in Britain and the United States, for example. Deor (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I know that we allow substantial latitude for geographical articles, but WP:STATION#Stations (apologies to Bowie) does not indicate that we do the same for railway stations. In any case, I may be mistaken in thinking that it's a problem that a new editor is creating many short articles and not discussing them with other editors.- MrX 18:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of Oh Yeaaahh's articles are decent enough to move ahead with a stub and/or citation needed tag, but I do see a hint of forum shopping in MrX behavior, first he AFD's all of Oh Yeaaahh's articles which doesn't go well(an editor even mentioned WP:DONTBITE to him), then he reports him as a vandal to admins, and then he is here.  A m i t  웃   18:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't confuse yourself a.amitkumar. The AfD was made in good faith. You will also notice that I specifically asked for guidance at AIV, which I received, thus my post here. Let's stop this trend of making minor issues into full-fledged dramafests. - MrX 18:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You expected to come to ANI and not have your interactions with or about the editor you are complaining about scrutinized? What do you mean by this trend of making minor issues into full-fledged dramafests? If the issue was so minor then you shouldn't be on ANI in the first place. How many editors do you need to convince you that this is not a major issue? Why did you have to report the user to AIV as a compromised or a promotion only account and ask for suggestions (link to this AIV report is present in my previous comment) when AfD consensus swayed against your nomination and has not even been closed yet(AfD was logged 2 days ago and link for this too is provided in my previous comment)? These remarks are not going to help you in your case especially when you fail to clarify your own actions.  A m i t  웃   20:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I find MrX's blatantly inappropriate use of warnings to be more problematic than any of Oh Yeaaahh's articles. Quite simply, if you do not have the time nor the inclination to communicate with the editor and explain why you consider these articles to be inappropriate, rather than to tag them all for deletion and stack warnings on the talk page, you should not involve yourself in this issue. And people complain about editor retention issues. —Dark 08:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective, I guess.

I thank Deor for addressing the topic and not engaging in ad hominem. - MrX 12:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Talking about editor retention, I just want to ask a question. After the dressing down MrX got for his actions does anyone care to retain him? Or are retention worries only reserved for newbies? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think an editor who has some experience in WP should also have some experience in handling pressures of the WP. The above might have been harsh, but as I mentioned an action against an editor involving AfD's on his article then an AIV and then an ANI report within a span of 2 days surely raises questions, Editor has the option to call this as ad-hominem/drama-fest/dressing down and not add any clarifications or respond with the so called patience to explain his actions especially when he expects the same from other editors (This is how I reacted in my first week of WP but don't expect the same from an editor with 20 thousand edits). Even ignoring commenting editors comment would have helped in this situation and the admin looking into the matter would have had full rights to reprimand other non-involved editors if our questions or points were not helping dig further into the case. Admins in this forum have a high volume of incidents to handle and some editors will have to discuss and analyze the situation to get a better picture for the admins to take action. 4 lines of a case without diff's is surely going to be analyzed from multiple angles. If these things on ANI are going to be an issue then I think no one can retain him. Communicating is important for a user but not mandatory and if ten warnings on the talk page did not obtain a response the suggestion of a brief block for such things is quite negative. (This does not mean that Oh Yeaaahh is doing great work, his contributions are incomplete and mostly stubs and is needing some attention from other editors to make it better).  A m i t  웃   20:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So you think when an experienced editor behaves in a "bad" way a dresssing down or stern rebuke is the only option when communicating with him? Is gunboat diplomacy the only option in a case such as this? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You are misreading, First there is no bad behavior by the reporting user and such scrutiny is not dressing down but is an opportunity for the user to clarify his stance. How can the admin know this is not a bullying case or not a new user bite if there are no answers to the questions above?  A m i t  웃   21:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah. The "misreading" card. An often used tactic to discredit an opponent. Not so. I think MrX was subjected to loud, reprimanding comments. I see some of the comments above as a classic case of severely criticising the behaviour of a longterm editor. For instance you bolded this comment: If the issue was so minor then you shouldn't be on ANI in the first place. That's shouting at the guy and it is a form of incivility. What I am trying to say is you could have phrased your criticism at a much lower decibel level without shouting at MrX. Why don't you try that next time? As far as your comment How can the admin know this is not a bullying case, in that case I think AGF is a real solution, at least in the beginning. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You are free to claim and understand what you wish. right now I am just going to ignore this drama.  A m i t  웃   21:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I will follow your lead. I'm outta here. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is concerning, and I note that they are failing to change geographic information and coordinates in some of their copies, have still not responded, and have now created an article with a copy of the AfD template that had been placed on one of their previous articles. I am reminded of a now indefinitely blocked user, but am holding off on mentioning the name here because it may be User:Oh Yeaaah will take the messages to heart and demonstrate himself/herself to be either a new user who is not going to be so disruptive, or a valid clean start. However, that user's poor, inaccurate and unreferenced articles were a serious problem requiring a lot of clean up; when such problems persist, they are serious. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Does the name of the indeffed user start with the letter "P"? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't see anything wrong here. User Oh Yeaaahh has simply created multiple rail station articles that the community has embraced since the beginning of WP, just as thousands of other users have done, and there is nothing wrong with that. Articles could ALWAYS use improvement, but that's not a reason for Mr. X to be discouraging users from broadly attacking a new user's good faith work. --Oakshade (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Creating articles without any evidence that they satisfy WP:V and WP:GNG is a Bad Thing. To the extent that such failings have been overlooked in the past, we need to change how we deal with these failings. If other people in the past failed to comply with the encyclopædia's basic norms, that's not carte blanche to ignore WP:V and WP:GNG (or to copy-and-paste errors in article-space). bobrayner (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that, with the exception of BLPs, sources proving the passing of WP:V and WP:GNG need only exist, they are not required to be in the article at all. (Until you move up the ladder to DYK/GA/FA/etc., but not for a "basic" article, no.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Instaurare (NYyankees51) topic ban

An indefinite topic ban was imposed on Instaurare (talk · contribs) (aka NYyankees51 (talk · contribs) ) by the community here. Evidently, User:HJ Mitchell decided, (on his own?) to lift the topic ban here. As far as I understand, only the community or arbcom can lift such a topic ban, according to WP:UNBAN. Instaurare has resumed editing LGBT-related articles, for example here. - MrX 04:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this was a violation of UNBAN by HJ Mitchell. Binksternet (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit questioned was pretty much on the ragged edge of "broadly construed" and it is legitimately within the province of an admin to determine just how far he wishes to construe it. The wording from the admin, in fact, indicates he would still consider the general ban about making problem edits in that area to be actionable, but the Chick-Fil-A non-scientific poll likely was properly removed, and trying to judge HJ Mitchell here about his reasonable judgement call is not really going to aid the project. One problem is that virtually every article on current people and events now has some element relating in some way to LGBT, or could easily have such a connexion made. Where a topic ban is presumably so all-encompassing, a much larger group ought to be involved in making that definition hold. Note: I opined than and now draconian solutions do not work, and using them for any outside rationale is worse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Based on his phrasing here, it appears that HJ Mitchell thought this was an ArbCom ban. I should also mention that User:Collect was the only one who openly opposed the original topic ban, which otherwise had a crushing consensus. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• And Istaurare has even edit warred over his clear topic ban violation [89] [90]. I think HJ Mitchell is largely responsible for this state of affairs (very poorly worded reply and arrogating himself powers not otherwise invested in him), but Istaurare certainly looks bent on continuing/resuming the behavior that got him topic banned. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The "breakfast poll" which is not actually a "poll" of any real sort, is not something which belongs in any article posing as "fact." I suggest that if, in fact, 53% of Americans were boycotting Chick-Fik-A that their sales would have diminished quite sharply. In fact HuffPo reported that CFA sales rose 12% in 2012.[91], thus having a suggestion in the article that 53% were boycotting the company is a teensy bit ludicrous, and contrary to WP:RS as it is not a "fact" any more than "73% of Gnarph magazine site poll responders say that the country of Diperia is run by aliens" would be a fact in the Diperia article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI is not the place to hash out content disputes. Since you seem to agree with Instaurare's [repeated] edit, and you yourself are not topic banned, you're welcome to go to the article talk page and argue your content points over there. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• User:HJ Mitchell is not in a position to unilaterally lift Instaurare's community ban from LGBT subjects. There is still an entry in WP:RESTRICT for the ban, and the bannning discussion did not confer any special authority on one admin. NYyankees51 was previously banned for three months from abortion in 2012 under WP:ARBAB but that one is long expired. If Instaurare wants to edit in the LGBT area he needs to ask the community to lift the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Before people take up their pitchforks against HJ Mitchell, let's look at the history. If you look at the discussion above leading up to the topic ban [92] along with the block log [93] and their talkpage [94], it seems it happened at the same time as Instaurare was indefinitely blocked again by HJ Mitchell (they were quickly unblocked but only to discuss any putative community actions). In other words, Instaurare was topic banned even though they couldn't edit anyway, and weren't unblocked until about 4 months later at User talk:Instaurare/Archive1#Conditions for your return and Instaurare appeared to abide by the dejure block [95]. While there's nothing wrong with imposing a topic ban on an indef editor who may one day be allowed back (and I don't think it was entirely clear at the time what else was going to happen to Instaurare), it is a little unusual even if not unheard of. Now looking at the topic ban discussion, while HJ Mitchell was involved in the related discussions, they didn't discuss the topic ban itself. Are we even sure they were aware of the community topic ban?

As per the earlier link, HJ Mitchell did impose a LGBT topic ban when unblocking, along with a bunch of other restrictions and they were surely entitled to lift these restrictions which appears to me to be what they were doing in the linked comment from them. This doesn't affect the community imposed topic ban and HJ Mitchell probably should have reminded Instaurare when lifting the restrictions that community imposed topic bans remained in effect, including a topic ban on LGBT related articles. In fact they probably should have worded the restrictions clearer when unblocking; reminding Instaurare to abide by community imposed topic bans or other restrictions on them, and what they were, as seperate from any additional restrictions (not including redundant restrictions) imposed as a condition of the unblock. But as I suggested, perhaps HJ Mitchell was not aware of the community topic ban or simply forgot about it, a mistake but surely not a terrible one.

Even if HJ Mitchell was attempting to lift the community topic ban, considering their high involvement in the case and the strange way the topic ban came about, I can understand their feeling it was better for them to impose and lift the ban, even if I don't agree it was okay.

Now as for Instaurare, this may have been unfortunate confusion on their part. So I suggest for now, a reminder they still have to abide by a community imposed restrictions and appeal these seperately. And also a suggestion considering the reaction to their edits, it will be a mistake to appeal these restrictions any time soon. And perhaps a reminder that they will only get so many chances (I'm going by the suggestion I get from the comments above that the edits were problematic for reasons beyond being in violation of a topic ban, I didn't check the edits myself).

Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that HJ Mitchell's actions were probably not purposely intended to override the community ban. Also, I didn't post this to discuss the quality of Instaurare edits at the Chick-fil-A SSM controversy article, or to rehash arguments already concluded in the topic ban discussion. The fact seems to be that Instaurare is still topic banned from LGBT-related articles, broadly (or draconianly) construed, until such time that the community lifts the ban following a request from Instaurare and an ensuing discussion. - MrX 14:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: There was nothing strange or unusual about the way the community imposed topic ban was discussed or enacted. It had overwhelming consensus and NYyankees51 was allowed to participate in the AN discussion as the state of his talk page [96] demonstrates. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hi folks, you've got yourself a good burning at the stake going there, so I won't take too much of your time. I'll just clarify that my lifting of the restrictions was intended to apply only to those restrictions which I imposed as a condition of Instaurare's (or NYyankees51 as he was known then) return, listed at User_talk:Instaurare/Archive1#Conditions_for_your_return. Neither those restrictions nor my lifting of them should (nor were they intended to) supersede any restrictions imposed by the community. In all honesty, I'd forgotten about the community restrictions, and I apologise to Instaurare and the community for my ambiguity. Of course it is not within my gift to lift sanctions imposed by the community, and I apologise if I gave the impression I believed it was. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

HJ, thanks for the clarification. Indeed when I saw the post on your talk page I suspected you weren't talking about the community LGBT restriction, but something else. But Instaurare must have read your post and assumed he was now free of any LGBT limits. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The topic ban discussion closed four days after I was indef'd, and the indef took all my attention. I honestly forgot about the community TB, though I'm not sure I knew about it at all; again, I was focused on the indef at the time. So I apologize; it was an honest mistake on my part and HJ's too. I seriously doubt my chances of ever getting the TB lifted, given that my two undoubtedly non-contentious edits (removing a clearly unreliable source and a simple re-sectioning) were swiftly and vociferously removed and the TB papers served immediately, with my fan club showing up with pitchforks for both me and HJ. So I doubt I will ever get a fair hearing regardless of past or future editing, but I intend to continue trying to rehabilitate my reputation as though I have a chance. Alas, the sanction stands, and I will abide by it, and I will continue editing constructively in other topic areas. Instaurare (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You were notified of the community-imposed topic ban at the time it was enacted [97]. I WP:AGF that both you and HJ Mitchell somehow forgot about it given that HJ Mitchell imposed a more extensive topic ban himself (covering abortion as well) upon your unblock [98]. He is surely allowed to lift the additional restrictions he himself imposed, but not those were also covered by a community consensus. To have the latter restriction lifted, see the procedure at WP:UNBAN. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Your point is valid, but with the greatest respect, I think that's what Instaurare just said. Given the number of things going on and given that this all took place over a year ago, I would hope he could be forgiven for a slight lapse of memory (once); I don't think he is trying to claim that my action somehow negated the community-imposed topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, right here and now he is not. Earlier, he was edit warring on a talk page trying to remove others' replies pointing out his topic ban [99] [100] and also raising doubts here. That did not smell good, so I'm making myself crystal clear here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even look at the link he posted til now. I assumed it was linked to one of HJ's posts on my talk page. I apologize. Instaurare (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Armenians infobox

User:Avdav just created an infobox for the Armenians article. Nothing wrong here, but he simply messed up the nice collage made by me a while ago. And as you can see he put the pictures of notable Armenians arbitrarily removing a few.

I started a discussion on the talk page of Armenians. And I asked him to get involved in the discussion I opened on Armenians TP regarding the infobox. He removed my note from his talk page and announced "I have no time, fur disputing, keep reverting, it will be reverted back again".

• ANI notice [101]

--Երևանցի ^talk 06:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

So far I'm seeing rather poor behaviour on both sides. Avdav's outright refusal to engage in communication is definitely troubling and is likely to lead to at least a sanction warning under WP:ARBAA2. Yerevanci's actions are slightly better, but he too has been edit-warring, and his only "talk" contributions so far have consisted in making demands that the other side should explain their preference, while not giving any explanation of his own preference himself [102]. His presentation of the case here is also hardly constructive, as it merely presents his statement of taste as a matter of fact (his own preferred collage is "nice", the other one "messed up"; the other guy's choices are "arbitrary", while his own presumedly aren't?) – Incidentally, about the image collages being edit-warred over, the version Yerevanci prefers contains a likely copyright violation and might have to be deleted (see Commons DR). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yerevanci, have you considered that instead of simply removing the entire infobox you make a WP:BOLD change to the infobox page to include a collage? Future Perfect makes a good point about the existing one possibly being deleted so consider making a new one. If Avdav continues to refuse to engage in discussion then perhaps further action can be taken at a later date. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The only difference between my and his versions is the collage. --Երևանցի ^talk 13:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Guys, you know what's sad? The fact that he says "I have no time, fur disputing, keep reverting, it will be reverted back again" and you still don't do anything about it. This is a big turn off. Like what else should I do? Some guy from nowhere comes and messes up the collage and says he has "no time to dispute".

I just replaced the problematic picture in the collage with a PD one. --Երևանցի ^talk 13:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

My point was that you just blank reverted the whole template rather than just change the picture, which is probably why you got a snappy response. I suggest you go to the template talk page, propose the change and see if Avdav engages in discussion. If he doesn't respond then make the change yourself. If Avdav continues to revert he'll hit the WP:3RR anyway and most likely get a sanction Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I see he continues to revert you when you add the collage to the template directly. I've posted a message on his page requesting he participate in this discussion so we can reach an amicable agreement. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Երևանցի ^talk 14:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, he just removed your message [103] --Երևանցի ^talk 14:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

My willingness to WP:AGF is running low. Perhaps an admin should step in with a short block for disruptive editing? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That is probably the best option for now. A one-day block would be enough, I think. The guy has made some useful edits in the past. --Երևանցի ^talk 14:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I would still expect you to post on the template talk page with your proposal to change the image to give the other editor an area to respond if he choses to do so. Show you are willing to discuss it. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. I don't have much hope though.--Երևանցի ^talk 14:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have issued an AE warning to Avdav and made it clear that he'll be blocked if this reverting continues. On that note, I'd like to ask Yerevanci too to refrain from further edits on the two pages without consensus. De728631 (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem, but I think users that "have no time for dispute" should be blocked for a day. He removed all the warnings on his talk page and doesn't seem to be willing to discuss anything. --Երևանցի ^talk 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems that a discussion has just begun. Let's see how this turns out. De728631 (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be engaging in any discussion. "Well, as I already said before, I have no sufficient time to fight my point of view, if you think Vazgen Sargsyan deserves to be in the list instead of Vazgen I, keep him untouchable" He just seems to be pushing his POV and refuses to discuss. --Երևանցի ^talk 15:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll have to revert it. He doesn't cooperate in any way. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Watch that 3RR though; it goes for both editors. Since the reverts you make on the new template and the reverts you made in the article itself have essentially the same effect, exchanging the one set of pictures against the other, I would argue that both sets of reverts should be counted towards 3RR together, which means you are probably already both past it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you guys kidding me? The user constantly refuses to engage in any discussion. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I know, but as I said, your own discussion behaviour has not been that much better – as far as I can see, you have still not detailed just how and why you think your selection of images is better than the other. And of course you don't "have to revert" anything. There is no danger that either the one version or the other will seriously damage the encyclopedia if it stays on for a day or two. There is now at least one third party in the discussion. Convince him, and he will likely make the revert for you. So far, we only have one editor's statement of taste against another's. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Man are you serious right now? By that logic I can go to the Germans article and remove a guy from the infobox I don't like and get away with it? Avdav clearly stated "I have no sufficient time to fight my point of view, if you think Vazgen Sargsyan deserves to be in the list instead of Vazgen I, keep him untouchable." You think this behavior should be even tolerated on Wikipedia? --Երևանցի ^talk 16:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, I wonder what the waiting period is. If we don't get any response from him by tomorrow, would I be entitled the right to revert his edits because he refuses to engage in discussions? --Երևանցի ^talk 21:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As Fut. Perf. has said, your responses are not much better. I'm trying to help you make the edits you want but so far it's just, "I don't like the way it looks" . --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't distort the facts. I clearly said that hHe removed a few notables without any explanation. The "better looking" part is also there, but I care more about why a few people were removed from the collage without any discussion whatsoever. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Threats of violence at Schurr High School

Your meme is under another troll's bridge. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. SlowBrozz (talk · contribs) posted this shortly after I reverted to a prior revision of Schurr High School - is this a credible death threat or mere trolling? I also suspect sockpuppetry, having seen Msmicle (talk · contribs) exuding similar traits to SB, sans the threat above. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 09:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC) It's not a threat of violence, but an old and tired internet meme. See its page at knowyourmeme. In any event, I'v indeffed him for vandalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC) This isn't my party, but I have reported cases like this to the authorities myself in the past. But I'm not the first responder here. Still, I'd be curious to see what other editors think the policy should be on this case. I do think the indef block is a good first step. Jusdafax 09:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC) There's even a musical version for the meme, along with 9 variations...hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 11:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC) It's just a silly meme. There's an indefinite block, that is sufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting rangeblock of 217.76.68.0/24

217.76.68.3 (talk) was just blocked for their edits to Dughlats. Now 217.76.68.158 (talk) has appeared and made the exact same edits. I checked the WHOIS, and the /24 is "Almaty mobile LTE subscribers dynamic pool #1". Can it be rangeblocked for a few days? Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

After looking at the rangecontribs from the /24 I'd be inclined to block the range for one month. Mostly, the editor has removed sourced content with no understandable edit summary. He has never posted on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Now 2.133.53.46 (talk) has done it too. I don't see a technical connection. I'm going to leave this here for the block but also request semi at WP:RFPP. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I've semi'd it. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Checking the page history, these IPs have also done the same thing in the past month: 217.76.68.4 (talk) 217.76.68.22 (talk) 2.135.62.50 (talk). Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Other possibly related IPs: 2.133.45.214 (talk) 217.76.68.14 (talk) 217.76.79.74 (talk) 217.76.79.39 (talk) 37.150.80.159 (talk). Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Help about images

User:Werieth removed all of the pictures I uploaded to the articles of the singles I contributed to. Including the single cover for the cover versions. What I don't get is why he had to delete the single covers too.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hotwiki. Extraneous images are against the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (an official Wikipedia policy with legal implications) that calls for minimal use of images. Specifically, including a second non-free album cover violates MFCC Policy #3a - Minimal usage: multiple images are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. In order for a second non-free image to be included in the article, the image itself would have to be discussed in the article. And the image would have to convey information that it's not possible to provide using words alone (NFCC Policy #1). -- Diannaa (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This is just a repeat of #Keeping the pictures in Desire's article User does not understand WP:NFC Werieth (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hotwiki, I am going to give you a more detailed explanation of why this is not allowed, because yeah, I think you do not understand this policy. Normally our articles about songs and albums have one non-free image only, and it's the cover, and it's in the info box. Extra images, sound clips, or stills from the video are only permitted when these additional non-free files are extensively discussed in the article. A good example of acceptable use of multiple non-free files can be found at our Featured Article, "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)", which contains three non free files. In addition to the cover in the info box, there's a snippet from the song; the musical techniques illustrated in the sample are the subject of sourced commentary in the article. And there's a still shot from the video (the best video of all time! Of all time!!), the styling of which is extensively discussed in the article. To sum up, adding a second image or other non-free file without it being the subject of sourced discussion in the article violates our non-free content policy. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC) So that's why he removed the extra images from your articles. Sorry. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So a single cover for a cover version can't be uploaded like for these articles anymore:

• I Want Candy
• I Think We're Alone Now
• Word Up! (song)
• Downtown (Petula Clark song)
• It's Raining Men
• What I Am
• I Know Him So Well

SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, the cover versions of those articles are discussed in the article and has its own sub-sections. So its necessary to include a single cover.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing discussed about the images themselves. WP:NFCC#8 requires sourced discussion of the image. Take a look at Virgin Killer for a good example of where the different covers are discussed. Werieth (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Werieth is right; the packaging itself has to be the subject of discussion, not the cover version. It is not necessary to include an image for each cover version. In fact it is against our policy to include the additional images. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, as there's a requirement to discuss the "single cover" for a cover version just so it won't be deleted. Let me just say this that I always contributed those articles to make them better, not just by uploading pictures and for you to just remove them all in one-day is quite frustrating. And cover versions can have a single cover, those files have a license tag. If you think your contributions are helping those articles, then you're wrong.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

My actions are supporting the m:Mission of wikipedia to create a free content project and minimize non-free usage. Werieth (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the only thing you are doing in this website. Most of those files have been around for a while, and even though they aren't described that perfectly, nobody tried to remove them all except for you.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Just because something has slipped through the cracks for a long period of time doesn't mean that there are not issues. One example of a hoax that lasted 7 years before some noticed it. Werieth (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, I'm not gonna continue this argument anymore. It seems like no one is going to stop you from removing music video still/single cover for cover versions/audio samples.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course we will not stop him, because he is right and you are wrong, so sorry. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hotwiki, please indent your comments when you reply here. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

IPs making strange, disruptive edits to Alodia Gosiengfiao, et al.

Hello! For the past week, I (and a few other editors) have been constantly reverting edits made on Alodia Gosiengfiao, Jinri Park, Daiana Menezes and Sam Pinto by IPs who have removed chunks of info, edited the PERSONDATA template, and adding information that is downright strange.

For example, this revision shows one change, which added two unrelated personalities to the page as "controlled female's (sic)", and this one shows where this IP thinks Gosengfiao and Park are the same person (which is patently untrue) this one where the IP inexplicably vandalizes the PERSONDATA template, and this one where the IP adds marginally related people to the See Only page. I'm not sure if these are connected, but the editing patterns are really strange considering it's all happened within the past week.

The following IPs are involved:

• 180.191.62.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 120.28.125.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 120.28.127.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 120.28.122.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 180.191.165.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 180.191.103.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'm not exactly sure what action should be taken, but considering all the pages these IPs have vandalized are covered under WP:BIO, something definitely has to be done? In any case, it's getting exasperating coming back to a new inexplicable bit of vandalism each day. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 04:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Mikrul - disruptive behaviour

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Has repeatedly removed xfd and speedy deletion templates from his articles despite being informed that this is unacceptable.
• Vandalised templates.
• Has made no effort at bettering himself despite being told that his behaviour may have consequences.
• Most amusingly of all, he told a bot "fuck you".

All the evidence is On his talk page (permalink). Since he is clearly not acting in good faith, I suggest a permanent ban.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 17:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

there is a fucking reason why fuckin noone trusts you fags at wikipedia youre all fucking bots. youre always deleting my fuckin articles most of you fuckin fags on this motherfucking site are fuckin 10 year old cunts so go a fucking head fucking ban me you cunts i dare you faggots because ive had enough of you fucking twats. im going log the fuck out for the last fuckin time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikrul (talk • contribs)

• Hmm, Bwilkins was being very gracious with a 24-hr block. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The funny part is that I EC'd with their above post - my comment was going to be "I see nothing worth a WP:BAN on their talkpage" ... then they posted the reply above - and you'll see my pesonalized block notice. Yes, I WP:AGF'd ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Are we keeping stats on the number of times a user says fucking (or some variant) in one post? I wanna know if the above sets a record (probably not).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've also surprised that a) I'm a "fag/faggot", b) I'm a "bot", c) I'm a "cunt", d) I'm a "twat", e) I'm 10 years old. Honestly, what are the odds of being all 5 of those at the exact same time!!!!!! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

At least you're not a nazi Communist (that'd be Bugs, if I remember the ghost of Trollmas Past right). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins, if I said he was right on, say, two or three out of those five, would you block me? Drmies (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

BWilkins, you could block him just for asking the question. Better still, get a crat to make him an admin again. That'll teach him.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

He should never have resigned his bit to begin with - that makes him at least 2 or 3 of the above too LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Can a named account be faked or an account hacker commit suicide for another user as a personal favor to a content antagonist? Perhaps no A/C at home? 99.251.120.60 (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Quick note. Rule of thumb: native speakers make spelling mistakes, non-native speakers make grammar mistakes. User:Mikrul is 100% positive an English native speaker. (As well, as anyone who has got up to a reasonable level in another language knows, unless you're some sorta genius, you can only dream of getting to that level of idiomatic fluency in cussin'.)--Shirt58 (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for calling me a genius :P Anyway, could we get back on topic? Is anyone opposed to a permaban here?--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 14:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that if the behavior continues, yes. Otherwise, just let his Pulp Fiction-esque vent be one of those amusing things that happened one day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(@Newbiepedian: Oh, it's different for people whose native tongue is one of the sensible Germanic languages. English is like the embarrassing kid brother of that language family, the one with dreadlocks and body piercings and ridiculous spellings and loanwords: "Hey, German, Swedish, Dutch! Look at all these cool words I stole from French - I dunno how to pronounce them, but I'm gonna use 'em anyway!", etc, etc)

No activity post-block, and I think "im going log the fuck out for the last fuckin time" is a pretty clear declaration that we won't be hearing from them soon. Hatting.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"WTF? Word-endings to indicate the dative and genitive cases and shit - that's just like soooo 10th Century, rest of the extant Western and Northern Germanic languages dudes", etc, etc

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jorm

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User jorm is censorship pages. At least three different authors (I am the third on and unrelated from the other two) have modified the dissidents page. Jorm keeps undoing those changes with ludicrous motivations. His censorship is clearly politically motivated and he is ridiculing me. Can please somebody reinstate the changes, politely ask Jorm to stop undoing changes that three independent, different users have made, and if necesssary open a discussion page? Help from an administrator would be helpful since he hs now undone changes three times, which is another violation of Wikipedia rules. Jerappelle (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Jorm's edits at Dissident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) look to be in order. Jorm (talk · contribs) appears to have properly removed the changes that violated WP:BLP because of lack of reliable sources. Jorm has only edited the page once in the last three weeks or so, so there's no edit warring issue. And while the suggestion that you "get your facts straight"[104] may not have been overly polite, it was not a personal attack or ridiculing, in my opinion. —C.Fred (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

First and foremost, if you're going to open an ANI thread, you must notify any users you are discussing. I've notified Jorm for you, but please don't make the same mistake in the future. Furthermore, I've just looked at Jorm's edits to Dissident, and they seem in line with WP:V and WP:BLP. If you wish to restore that information, then the burden of proof is on you to provide sources. CtP (t • c) 15:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• So, Jerappelle, you hadn't edited since 14 March 2013 until today, and yet your first edit back was a reversion of Jorm? Suspicious. There are definitely two separate people though, given the WHOIS reports on the IPs. The edit is absolutely appalling; it's uncited, it reads like a mini soapbox piece, and it may not even be factually correct. Jorm is absolutely spot-on to remove it again. Unless this BOOMERANGs on the OP, I think this should be closed sharpish. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jorm and Lukeno94 and Fred

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't mean to be a nuisance, but I thought Wikipedia was a collaborative effort, not a place where people are told to shut up. This is how I feel. I thought there would be a discussion, not a decision in 10 secs regarding the previous issue regarding dissidents that was immediately closed. I see no sources for the other part of the article. It looks like there are serious double standards here. I re-modified it, and added sources, instead of just copying what somebody else had done, and still people completely took everything off. I find this experience so utterly negative. If you don't want people to add/edit pages, let me know, I will stop now, I do not want to be a nuisance, I am trying to help, and yet I am treated like I am the one causing damage. I hope there can be a discussion, if you are going to close this immediately, fine, I will stop now being part of Wikipedia, I don't need to spend my time here. But if you are genuinely interested in people participating, can we have a civil discussion instead of telling me I am wrong, shut up, and go away? Can other people chime in? I find that the way administrators decide to edit articles is totally arbitrary, and often motivated by their own ideas. My last edit was well articulated, with sources, and it was still refused. I find that all of you, Lukeno94 and Jorm and Fred have refused any discussion whatsoever, and I feel this is not acceptable. I find you're abusing your position of administrators. I hope this can be discussed, because I feel it is a Wikipedia problem when administrators abuse their position, and that is why I am opening this thread. And if you are not interested because I am a moron who disagrees with you, but you are an administrator so can do what you want, and I am not, then let be it, thank you and good luck to all of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerappelle (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• The WP:BOOMERANG is strong in this thread. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP user forging the signature of another editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 221.244.40.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above IP editor was warned repeatedly and ultimately blocked for one year back in April 2012 for repeatedly including the signature of another editor in comments added to the talk pages of various articles over a period of months. The user is now back and has promptly started doing exactly the same here and here. For the record, I contacted the user (User:Circeus) whose name keeps getting used when this first started back in September 2011, and he confirmed (here) that he has no relation to the IP editor and has no idea why his user name keeps getting copy-pasted like this. As the IP editor simply blanked his talk page in the past when I asked him to stop, and subsequently received two blocks for continuing, I haven't bothered to warn him again, and am bringing it straight here. While it may not be malicious vandalism, the user does seem to have serious language-related WP:Competence problems. --DAJF (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrator circumventing a AFD result

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• • Note- I will use TRM when referring to him below.
    • How presumptive! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Jax 0677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Southwest Airlines Flight 345 was deleted per this discussion. Shortly after the article was deleted, Jax0677 made the page into a redirect. Redirect was never discussed at the AFD. It was discussed at the article's talk page, but the editors there decided they rather try to keep the article than make it a redirect.

I G4d the article and alerted the closing admin. TRM came along and undid the G4. He wrote " Is this "substantially identical to the deleted version".

At his talk page, TRM questioned[105] my competence and admits that a redirect was the ideal solution. He is overstepping his administrator by deciding what should be a AFD result. He also continues to insult(While I raised this before at ANI about TRM's remarks towards aviation members and got shot down, I can point to other aviation members besides myself who took offense with his comments) any aviation member who disagrees with him.

Please note Jax0677 in September 2012, recreated as a redirect O. J. Murdock after it went through both a AFD and DRV. When the redirect was G4d, it was deleted. I pointed this out to TRM. He's ignored it so far....William 17:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

My only comment here: the redirect is not "substantially identical to the deleted version". It's also useful to the reader. It was pointed out to WilliamJE that he had not read the notes on the template he himself was adding. He ignored this. That's why I questioned his competence. If we have to be dragged to AN/I to discuss trivialities like this then god help the project. Incidentally, the "other redirect" created by Jax0677 is irrelevant here.

I'm sure there's an axe or two to grind, here's your opportunity, I won't respond further. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think TRM is in the right here. The redirect is substantially different to the deleted version (it's completely different), so G4 doesn't apply. Take it to WP:RfD if you're that bothered. Number 57 17:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Why was there even an AFD discussion if one administrator can overturn it?...William 17:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What harm is the redirect doing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What did we have an AFD discussion for if an administrator can unilaterally override it with his own result? As I said redirect was never discussed at the AFD and rejected at the the article's talk page by those who wanted to keep the article....William 17:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE? I don't recall overturning the AFD, I just allowed a redirect to be there which is not "substantially identical to the deleted version". Please. Are we done here? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So when are you restoring the O. J. Murdock redirect that I repeated pointed out? Your inconsistent behavior and personal attacks say alot. Where were you when the AFD was taking place? Will you be redirecting every Aviaton related AFD? Please tell us?...William 17:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, please show a level of competence. You know other stuff exists, right? You read the G4 criterion, right? where it says it applies but only if the recreated article is "substantially identical to the deleted version"? So let's deal with this so-called abuse of my "admin" powers (which is fallacious, I used "undo" which most editors have, right?) and sort it out once and for all. Let's go! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• If someone was circumventing the AfD, they would have simply restored the article in its pre-AfD form. Just because an AfD results in a delete verdict doesn't prevent anyone from re-creating the article as a redirect, or even from re-creating the article in a significantly different form than the one that was deleted, unless there was a specific consensus at the AfD that a redirect would also be inappropriate. If you don't like the redirect, you should start a discussion at WP:RFD. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 17:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• It's a redirect. It's not a recreate or even a merge. It's a redirect. I've created numerous redirects that wouldn't make sense as a standalone article and would easily be deleted in any AFD. Also, where's the admin abuse? I don't see any use of the tools. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 18:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

All of you are forgetting two things. 1- TRM's repeatedly stated dislike for Aviation crash AFDs and 2- His attacks on me an task force members. The rejection of the G4 wasn't done in good faith. It's his attitude and again an administrator is going to be allowed off even when multiple editors have voiced their displeasure at his attacks not just me....William 18:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Aha, they're "all" forgetting you're a mind reader? I reinstated the redirect because I think it helps our readers, and is in no way related to the article that was deleted at AFD. It's a plausible redirect. So that's that dealt with. As for "multiple editors have voiced their displeasure at his attacks", bring your cohorts, let's debate it. It's probably not related to this incompetent attempt to use (and re-use) speedy deletion templates incorrectly, but we'll see. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Forgetting what? This is your first mention of your first point with no diffs to support it. Even if you do have diffs, so what? As to your second point, in your only diff above, I see no "attack". Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 18:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If editors disagree with the redirect there is a route to discuss it for deletion of keep at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• redirect is perfectly acceptable for anyone to create at any time, regardless of prior AFD outcomes. If it is a plausible search term to get people to the "real" article, whatever that may be at the time, then there is no good reason not to have the redirect. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect is fine in a situation like this. --John (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Yep, the redirect is totally OK, and also not an administrative action -- any registered editor could have created this. --RL0919 (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• WP:BOOMERANG anyone? WilliamJE's most recent post shows that this is simply his attempt to take a swipe at an admin he dislikes, in the most petty way possible. TRM's comments about competence appear to be more and more valid by the second; claiming a redirect can't exist due to an AfD discussion is utterly ludicrous, as is the suggestion that it is G4 worthy. For what it's worth, the previous deletion of a redirect via G4 is also going to be incorrect, unless it went to RfD as well. I remember WilliamJE demonstrating ownership on other aircraft-related things at AfD and ANI... maybe it's time they get a topic ban for a few months to prevent this? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Neither Jax 0677 nor The Rambling Man did anything wrong here, but I can see how a newbie may be confused by the subsequent creation of the redirect. Too early to propose any drastic sanction. Everyone needs to take a step back and a deep breath. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Going to agree with this assessment of the situation until proven otherwise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
      • User:WilliamJE has been editing Wikipedia since mid-2006 and has over 35k edits, any claims of him being a newbie are lame; he's just incompetent in this issue. For the second time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Indeed. I was confused for a moment by the red links all over this, but I see now that the editor complaining has a long wiki history. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Not seeing a problem with the redirect, but even if the redirect were bad/inappropriate it still wouldn't be an ANI issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Given the mention of the accident in the main Southwest article there's no reason why there shouldn't be a redirect to that text. If we put this redirect through the deletion process there's no way that it would be deleted. AFD is not some sort of legal formalism where a "delete" outcome forbids any later act of dealing with the material. Mangoe (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, I see no problem with even adding the appropriate, air-crash-related categories to the redirect, per WP:RCAT. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• It seems WilliamJE is judging this case from the perspective of the O. J. Murdock saga. In that case, the redirect was indeed deleted after being tagged with G4, but only after the redirect had been previously discussed at DRV as an option, and rejected. This is far from the usual scenario however. Redirects being created after the article is deleted are fairly common in my experience. One relevant guideline is WP:NNC, which says that a topic not being notable enough by itself for an article does not prohibit its mention/inclusion in another. The other is WP:REDIRECT, which has among the allowed purposes "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article." So while the crash is mentioned in the main airline article, the redirect is quite kosher. (In contrast, Tennessee Titans does not mention Murdock.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Okay think we're done here, User:WilliamJE perhaps doesn't quite get it yet, but the pile-on "nothing to see here" has now reached terminal velocity. Perhaps some other admin can close this omnishambles down and maybe remind WilliamJE what to do when considering nominating articles for G4? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Tate Langdon making multiple personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Tate Langdon is very clearly unwilling to act in a civil manner. First, the user posted this attack, then vandalized my userpage with derogatory comments: 1 2. Also, note this response to me on the user's talk page here. Beerest355 Talk 22:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Tell tat Tate Langdon (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Quick block, please, and then decide if it's 24 hours for acting like an ---- or indefinite as a possibly compromised account. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Arctic Kangaroo (yet again)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given the endless saga that User:Arctic Kangaroo has involved multiple individuals in, over an extended period, it might seem reasonable to assume that s/he has actually understood by now what the Creative Commons license implies. Apparently not. AK has recently posted on Jimbo's talk page a statement saying that "On a side note, all my works are always All rights reserved. [106] I pointed out to AK that that was "an assertion that you are claiming rights incompatible with the CC licence", and suggested that it be withdrawn. [107] AK's response:

"I will be sleeping soon, so may not be able to continue talking about this until the next time I log on. Just to clarify, what I mean by that is wherever else I upload them. Here though, how I wish it's the same as well. Anyway, I did not know that the consequences of a CC license can be that serious. I simply can't believe how immoral people are. Just 1 simple mistake, it's so hard to forgive and forget just "because CC said so, so I have to dump my morals into the bin" [108]

It is self-evident that AK has even now failed to understand the nature of the CC license - as applying everywhere, as irrevocable, and that s/he cannot impose conditions on it, or limit where it applies. Given this failure to understand licensing, after having it explained repeatedly, I have to suggest that a block per WP:COMPETENCE is not only advisable to avoid further disruption, but obligatory in that AK is (regardless of issues over age) incapable of giving consent to a licence s/he appears incapable of understanding. Far too much time has been wasted on this issue already, and I see no reason to drag this out any further. Accordingly, I formally propose that AK be blocked indefinitely, and that 'indefinitely' in this case shall be taken to mean until (a) AK can prove (via private communication with the WMF) that s/he is of a legal age where there can be no reasonable doubt that the CC license is applicable, and (b) when AK can demonstrate that s/he fully understands the implications of the CC license. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Some extracts from my email to Jimbo. Read more about the whole saga on Jimbo's page and the Commons DR.

1. When I uploaded those images, I did not know how severe the consequences are - I couldn't even think of it.
2. But anyway, I hope that you can forgive my mistake by deleting those images. It's quite disturbing to me now, with a very important final school exam and an even more important national exam just round the corner.
3. Deleting my images will give me peace of mind, so that I can take my time read through all the available licenses, comprehend them fully, clarify anything if need be, and then think about whether I'm fine with them, before uploading any further images (or even the deleted ones) back to Wikipedia. Because remember, I really want to contribute some good images to Wikipedia, but all I need now is some time to reconsider, and deleting the images will make me able to reconsider better. Because I also don't want them on Commons at all, just on en.wiki alone with a notice to keep it on en.wiki only and not upload them anywhere else.

✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 11:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

More coming up when I'm back from dinner. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 11:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Licenses will be revoked for all my images, which have been deleted out of courtesy. I remember guaranteeing somewhere that any of these CC licenses I grant in future will be non-revokable already. Anyway guys, don't mix text contributions with image uploads. For my text contribs, it doesn't bother me whether it's CC-BY-SA-3.0 or CC-0 or All Rights Reserved. But my photos are somethings personal and treasured, so obviously for that I will guard more aggressively. But I have already promised somewhere that I will not upload any more of my photos until I fully understand the licenses. Using the above promises, I hereby think that an indef block or even an image upload ban will be redundant. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Actaully these comments are digging your hole even deeper. It has been explained to you many times CC cannot be revoked (or, to be more precise, if someone is using your images, you can't prevent these copies to be spread under CC terms). You don't have to guarantee that you will grant non-revokable licenses, because once you upload you can't revoke anything on the uploaded copy. If you have so deep misunderstandings on CC, you simply should not edit, for lack of competence. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

While the images may be gone, their license status can never be changed—if somebody has already downloaded a copy, for example, they can freely redistribute it under the terms of the CC-BY-SA, and there's nothing you can do about that. "Licenses will be revoked for all my images"—no they won't, because it's impossible. If you fail to grasp this, then I concur with Cyclopia that you shouldn't be allowed to contribute anything under a CC license. CtP (t • c) 15:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Then let's make it like this. For those who have been lucky enough to save a copy, they must use it under the CC terms. But for those who couldn't manage to do so (too bad), it's license revoked (in other words, all rights reserved). That's OK? ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I may still upload my images in future, but with the conditions mentioned at the top of this. Also, I may still upload other unrelated images, even if not mine. For example, copyrighted but free work. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Still, no. You cannot impose your own conditions on a CC license and decide to whom it does and doesn't apply. "But for those who couldn't manage to do so (too bad), it's license revoked"—no, they could still obtain a copy from somebody who did manage to download it, and you can't say that if they do, it's suddenly All rights reserved. Also, if you upload any images to en.wiki, you can ask for people not to use it anywhere else, but you cannot require it, because anybody who wants to upload the images elsewhere would be perfectly within their rights to do so under a CC license. CtP (t • c) 15:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm more interested in my images, so let me just declare: The license has never been valid, and I never knew how serious the consequences were, so I'm asking for it to be revoked.

No blocks first. Let's discuss before taking any action.

✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Assuming the license has never been valid, there's no reason it would be any more valid here than at Wikimedia Commons. This has actually been a central part of my reasoning for a block all along. CtP (t • c) 16:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocks are for prevention. The competence reason is invalid, actually. Just revoke the licenses, and as long as after this incident(s), I learn from my lesson, then everything is alright. No need to block. I already said, revoke the licenses, and any future license will be valid. Not enough careful consideration this time, and noobiness in this field, should be forgiven. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No, because the license cannot be revoked. CtP (t • c) 16:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• i would prefer a ban to a block as that will make sockpuppet reverting easier and needed due to the licencing issue. Agathoclea (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef ban -User:Arctic Kangaroo also said: "I've never approved of CC licenses" on Jimbo talk page, which seems clear enough. We have already had other cases of people who (impossibly) wanted to revoke their licenses, and we correctly blocked them. If you don't agree with the CC, you can't edit Wikimedia project, simple as that. Indef should not be forever, but should be on the conditions listed by ATG above. Ban instead of block, per Agathoclea above. -- cyclopia^speak! 16:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Indef block, as explicitly says he has no intention of accepting TOS and obviously can't be bothered to read and understand the licensing terms he explicitly agreed to follow. "Indefinite" not "infinite", as he could come back when he's fully understood the licensing and we're comfortable that he is legally able to agree to them (if there's consensus that that is a problem), allow him to get himself corrected for any bad advice he received, etc. On the other hand, if there's any history of sock, that's abuse not newbie-negligence/bad-advice, and I would support ban as well. DMacks (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef ban per Agathoclea. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef, with regrets; it's a shame that an experienced editor, who is usually fairly solid (AfC and images obviously being exceptions) needs indeffing, but that's what it's come to. The statement quoted by Cyclopia is immensely troubling, and is not compatible with Wikipedia. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the terms proposed, as they are basically "ban all editors under the age of 18" by the back door. Support indef block until such a time as AK acknowledges that material he contributes on English Wikipedia must be licensed appropriately, and that there is no way of making this "All Rights Reserved elsewhere" or whatever. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I am going to refrain from supporting or opposing a block or ban, as I don't feel I'm sufficiently familiar with the editor's history to judge one way or another. However, I do agree with Demiurge1000 that the conditions seem inappropriate. I don't think it's right to add a condition that the block/ban can be lifted when "AK can prove (via private communication with the WMF) that s/he is of a legal age where there can be no reasonable doubt that the CC license is applicable"—if we have concerns about underage editors not being legally capable of licensing their contributions under the CC license, this needs to be discussed in a broader sense, not just imposed randomly on young editors. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not proposing we ban all editors under 18, by the back door or otherwise. I'm proposing we block one editor who has used the "I'm a minor" excuse to cause us no end of trouble, in order to prevent this one editor doing it again. As for the broader legal issue, if it did' turn out that CC licenses by minors aren't enforceable, and we had to ban all minors from editing, nothing we do here would make the slightest difference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

AK's "I'm a minor" excuse is completely invalid, so I don't see why AK becoming of legal age should affect any block. For the record, User talk:Philippe (WMF)/Archive 6#Minors entering into contracts and meta:Wikilegal/Removal of photos of minors might be useful. The latter link says, "Licenses granted by minors are as valid as those granted by adults. Both minors and adults are protected by the same copyright laws and they can issue equal licenses." – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support a WP:COMPETENCE indef block until the user is mature enough to contribute to this project, which given his track record, should include a clear and unambiguous statement, in their own words, about the licensing/reuse implications of submitting content here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure I understand the problem - given Arctic Kangaroo's clarification, I took his "all rights reserved" comment as referring to stuff he uploads elsewhere - and unless he uploads or posts the same stuff to Wikipedia (which for all I can tell he does not, or at least will not do in the future), there's nothing wrong with that. Huon (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes; he was (probably) talking about his earlier media contributions (seven files; I think) to Commons [109], [110]; no way related to Wikipedia. That matter is pending for the decision of WMF legal; considering his age. I didn’t see a word by him about his current or future contributions against the CC terms (including both text and media). JKadavoor Jee 18:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I believe that at least the photo that prompted the dispute was uploaded to Wikipedia first, then deleted here once it was on Commons.[111] So the problem already affects files uploaded here on enWP. --Avenue (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't follow the dates correctly. It does seem that this file was uploaded to Commons first (though using the Wikipedia upload wizard). --Avenue (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with you that most likely what AK is saying is that on all other websites, he? releases his images with all rights reserved and that he wishes he could do so on wikipedia. However it still sounds to me like he doesn't understand there's nothing unique about wikimedia projects, some other websites require free licences and many websites even though not requiring free licences requiring you to irrevocably licence your content to them (often allowing them to do whatever they want including sublicence). And of course it doesn't matter what the websites requires if they allow CC and he choses CC he can't later revoke the licence. Or to put it a different way, it sounds like he still doesn't understand he can't just ignore what he's doing and imagine all rights are reserved and if he makes a mistake people have to accept that and follow his changes months later. Further it sounds like he still doesn't understand no one can revoke his licence, the only possibilities are a court could decide he didn't actually licence the content in that way or that even if he did he was entitled to revoke it because of his age (and of course without revoking people can voluntarily remove his content). Or in other words he still doesn't understand how the licence works. Nil Einne (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef per Someone. WP:CIR appears to be the real problem here, as AK seems not to be able to understand the nature of participation here and the requirements of the licensing which applies every time the "save" button is pushed. It's much too early to consider a ban instead of a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment legal has already spoken about this issue and claims that there is no issue with allowing minors to edit. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment That page should be called "Removal of photos uploaded by minors". It gives the initial impression that it is about photographs of minors. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Further it says "the claimed absence of ongoing consent as a "good rationale" to remove the photograph." JKadavoor Jee 19:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wow! That page is only about consent of a minor in photos of minors; not photos by minors. JKadavoor Jee 19:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well it is a bit of both: photos of minors by minors. As such it is hard to separate out the advice. Also it makes the mistake (in my non-lawyer interpretation) of confusing a licence with a contract. I licence has no return promise, which is necessary to make it a contract -- Commons does not promise to display your photograph. So the argument that a minor benefits from the "contract" since "A minor who posts photos on Commons, for example, receives a large benefit from the use of and international recognition and exposure gained from the global project" is false imo. So I continue to await some applicable legal advice. Colin°^Talk 19:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I assume this discussion is initiated without understanding what is discussing on Jimbo’s page. So I request to read it entirely prior to make any comment here. Thanks. JKadavoor Jee 19:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The other link here posted above contains I think more appropriate advice. Essentially, we don't know wrt a minor revoking a licence because it hasn't been handled by the court, but AK is affected by the contract he makes with WMF every time he presses the save button (to irrevocably agree to release your contribution) and he does benefit from that contract in various ways, making it difficult for him to renage on his side of the deal. Colin°^Talk 19:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; but still it is very vague to me. Notice how cleverly that CC personnel ignored/abstained from making any comment on his mail regarding his younger age. JKadavoor Jee 20:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose a broad ban applied to all editing activity, or indef block. Support a topic ban on uploading images. I sympathise with those whose patience has run out and indeed when I saw AK's name here yet again I heaved a weary sigh. But I think a blanket ban would be unnecessarily harsh. There have been two areas of signal incompetence on AK's part: inappropriate decisions at AfC and the uploading of images. We have already topic banned AK from the former, and can perfectly well ban him/her from the latter as well. The rest of AK's contributions have not attracted any ire that I'm aware of and this would leave AK free to contribute (and possibly to grow in knowledge and experience.) I realise this is counter to the flow of opinions here but although AK's judgement has been monumentally poor in these two areas, I do think they are perhaps areas which can be cleanly isolated and we should give him/her the opportunity. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Kim: I think the problem goes beyond images, simply because of AK's lack of understanding (or willingness to understand) that he is invoking the CC/GFDL licenses each and every time he makes an edit to an article or posts a comment. The editing page is very clear about that, and there's no real distinction between uploading text and unloading an image. If AK doesn't understand (or agree) that he has voluntarily licensed his image by uploading it, then he also doesn't understand that he has similarly licensed his words by uploading text. Wikipedia is utterly dependent on every editor implicitly agreeing to the licensing sceme (whether they are a minor or not) - the whole house of cards falls down if that is undermined. Given that, AK's refusal to understand in regard to images cannot stand in isolation. He cannot say that everything's hunky-dory when he licenses his text, but not when he licenses his images. It is this fundamental lack of competence that concerns me, and lead me to support an indef block until he can show that he understand the way this system works. A topic ban on image uploads is not, I think, sufficient, since it's AK's global lack of understanding which is the underlying issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef ban I actually have concerns beyond CIR. As I understand it, AK has now taken the copyright issue of the commons photos to OFFICE. While I had some sympathy to AK's position, I have little sympathy for that cause of actions. IMO, it's equivalent to WP:NLT, particularly since all evidence suggests AK voluntarily licenced their content under those licences and it sounds like having failed to convince the commons community to take them down (which I don't necessarily agree with but understand), they're not attempting legal means to force their way. Even though it may be commons, it affects here enough that I suggest action is justified. As long as the legal request continues, I would suggest that AK should be unwelcome. If the WMF decides to abide by the request, we're in a tricky situation, personally I would still be reluctant to allow them back based on the fact I would consider the legal issue unresolved and unresolvable (the proble, is the foundations decision doesn't necessarily mean AK has a credible case but we don't want to fight this) unless AK withdraws the request (which doesn't have to mean the images would be reuploaded). There's no way the community can trust that next time AK doesn't get their way, they're just going to try to force it by other means (not based on the fact they necessarily have a genuine case but that people won't want to fight them on it). It's true once they're of age, it may be more difficult but I'm not sure if this would be enough to me. Now if the WMF decides to ignore AK request (and if it actually goes to court we'e obviously respect the court's decision), I would support allowing AK back when we can be confident of their competence. Nil Einne (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not AK; it is we who contacted and to legal, not to office for getting an advice. JKadavoor Jee 20:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Clarified below in detail JKadavoor Jee 03:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it seems I misunderstood the comments, I've struck out the relevant parts of my reply. However I continue to support a block for competence reasons. As I mentioned in a discussion above, I'm not so much concerned over the 'all rights reserved' on other websites bit, as I think what AK means there is not quite what Andy suggested. But I am concerned over the continued lack of understanding of how licencing works, and what the CC is. Ultimately people have to understand what they're doing here, including understanding and accepting (not necessarily agreeing) with licencing and my impression is after all this time this still doesn't apply to AK. Failure to do so results in the nasty mess we are in now. (And AK's claims that text and images are different doesn't help their case, in fact it makes it worse.) P.S. I should clarify that the reason I worded my original response to refer to an indef ban is because I regarded the NLT thing as diff from what we normally deal with so neither community ban nor indef block seemed appropriate. Now it's no longer an issue I'm fine with either an indef block or a community ban. Nil Einne (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• support topic ban. weak support ifdef The images could probably be deleted under the assumption that he did not validly enter into a contract/license as there was no "meeting of the minds" regarding what the license meant. That is a severe WP:COMPETENCE issue, but not one that deserves an ifdef imo - on the other hand, that same licensing issue applies to all edits he makes in the project, which would mean if he is not agreeing to the license, or cannot understand it, he cannot contribute. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block until Arctic Kangaroo can demonstrate that they understand the terms of the CC-BY-SA license and accept that all contributions they make to Wikipedia will fall under this license irrevocably. Until then, AK should not be allowed to edit (or upload images to Commons, for that matter). CtP (t • c) 21:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Arctic Kangaroo's comments "I'm never uploading anything to Commons again" and "I have no complaints about my text contributions being used" suggest that a block or ban over this may be unnecessary. —rybec 21:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• If I said "I'm never uploading anything to Commons again", would the same apply to me? What about User:Giano? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• @rybec: See my comment to Kim Dent-Brown above. The fact that AK "has no complaints" about his text uploading is not really relevant - he doesn't have any complaints about it now, but that situation could easily change in the future if he doesn't understand and agree that hitting the save button -- for text or for an image -- is implicitly agreeing to an irrevocable license. In point of fact, AK is not entitled to make one judgment about image uploading and another about text uploading, it's all the same thing, which is something he needs to understand before he can continue editing here, whether or not he intends to upload images. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• I echo Beyond My Ken. If he considers the license he used for his images to be invalid because he is a minor, then he must also consider the same license invalid here where he contributes text, and therefore should not be allowed to contribute. He can't have it both ways. CtP (t • c) 22:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• The first comment indicated to me that AK wouldn't be contributing any more images. The second could be construed as showing an understanding that making textual contributions is granting a license to use them: it was in response to a comment by Mattbuck which said so explicitly. Other photographers have donated images without understanding the licenses, then had second thoughts and asked for courtesy deletion; it's not always granted, but a cross-wiki block or ban for it would be highly unusual, wouldn't it? —rybec 23:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Important question for those !voting above: Quite a few are saying "indef ban". Is a WP:CBAN actually being suggested or is the indef block proposed by the OP what is meant? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block but oppose a ban I came here expecting to oppose the indef, but comments like:

  Let me warn you guys, I'm gonna continue protesting until the file is deleted. This is bullshit. You people at Commons have total disregard and no respect for others who contribute. And no respect for creators' rights too. I'm not gonna give a damn on whatever shame this will cause, and also how embarrassing this can be. I just want it deleted, and after that, nobody is to upload it again, even if you make whatever minor tweaks with Photoshop or whatever, as nobody is given permission by me to upload the copyrighted work. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

make me question his competence. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support a block on all minors, who cannot sign contracts and who should not be exploited by Wikipedia. Also, Arbcom has complained about its inability to enforce even its toothless WP:Child Protection and its 20 yearly cases of apparent child-predators, so it's not a safe environment for kids. The US's COPPA and COPA laws prohibit participation by minors under 12 and require parental consent for those 13-17 years old. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• How, in your view, are minors being exploited by Wikipedia? Also, COPA hasn't been in effect since 2009 never went into effect. CtP (t • c) 23:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• @KW: I don't agree with you, but your position is at least consistent. I'm curious if you have put any thought into how editors would prove to WMF that they aren't minors? By clicking a button that says they're over 12? If your concern is protecting children -- and that is my conclusion after seeing many similar comments from you over the years -- how, exactly would that protect anyone? Except, of course, the WMF, which can fall back on the statement to show that it is not responsibe? And if minors can't enter into a contract, or authorize a license, how do they have the ability to make statements about their age which are legally binding? The questions are not entirely rhetorical, the problem of proving one's identity online is a thorny one, and the issue of age is only one aspect of it, so I do wonder if you've put any thought into it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Section 1302(2)(B) of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) exempts non-profit organizations, such as the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. And as Chris the Paleontologist pints out, COPA never went into effect. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• A block on all minors? Are you joking? Insulam Simia (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No, not a joke. If a minor cannot enter into a contract (with some exceptions which do not appear to apply), how can the minor license the contribution, which occurs every time you click save? I believe WMF legal is looking into this, and hope a solution is found, but it doesn't sound like a simple issue.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have read our legal position. I'm not fully persuaded (caveat IANAL), and I believe legal is revisiting, which wouldn't be needed if that prior advice were sufficient. I've read title 17 (Copyright Law). It is remarkably silent on the issue of minor, with, if you will excuse the expression, minor exceptions which don't apply. Why, because the law is mainly about granting the authority to people to acquire copyrights. If they considered whether minors should be able to acquire copyrights, my guess is that it took them about two seconds to conclude, why not, so saw no need to address minors separately. However, while the present issue is related to copyrights, it isn't about the granting of a copyright. Minors do not give up the copyright they obtained when clicking save, but they are granting a license, which is a contract, but that is not grating a copyright. So the fact that the law says a minor can acquire a copyright does not tell us whether the minor can enter into a contract which modifies the terms of use of copyrighted material. That would seem to be in the arena of contracts, not copyrights, so we have to look to see what contracts minors can enter into. At the moment, I haven't seen anything that suggests a minor can enter into such a contract. Did I mention that IANAL? I hope there is a soluaiton allowing minors to contribute, but I accept that the question is valid.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, so what hes a kid. Anyone has the potential to behave in such a manner, its bad I know but his maturity shouldn't lead to a ban or a block, I sosupport a topic ban. Prabash.Akmeemana 23:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, what topic are you proposing we ban AK from? The CC license applies everywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm admittedly not familiar with User:Arctic Kangaroo's history on ANI. But it seems odd to impose an indefinite block/ban on a person who hasn't even commented here to clarify what their position is. I think folks should hear from AK first before such a drastic action is taken. Perhaps he/she has come to understand the position of CC and retracts their earlier remarks. Newjerseyliz (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Just went to see his/her user stats and found User:Arctic Kangaroo has been active since Aug. 2012 and done 21K+ edits in the past year. Newjerseyliz (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block if the user has no intention of following arguably the most important rule on the site. TCN7JM 00:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support site ban, because as WP:5P says, one of our fundamental principles is that "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute" and also that "all editors freely license their work to the public". Anyone of whatever age who refuses free licensing of their work simply cannot be a part of this project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• (Thanks Kim Dent-Brown, for asking me to clarify my point.) It is not AK contacted the legal team. From Jimmy’s comment, it can be assumed that it is he who forwarded it to The Legal. I too discussed this matter with one in The Office earlier, when the COM:DR was closed as kept and AK claimed there that he is an youngster. The reply was that they usually process such a request only if the request is from the Author. I didn’t see anywhere AK said that he made such a request. Now the Legal has responded on Jimmy’s talk page; and advice us to forgive the matters happened so far. I’ve no problem for whatever action this community taken against him if he will not say he understands the licensing terms now and willing to obey it. But I agree with Geoff (The Legal) that we can forgive the earlier things and leave the decision to Commons whether or not to delete his earlier media contributions, there. JKadavoor Jee 03:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with any decision to delete files from Commons. And neither is it a matter of AK agreeing to 'obey' the CC license - it isn't something that can be 'disobeyed', and it would be grossly misleading to suggest that this was ever a possibility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support site ban until editor can document being the age of legal majority (18) and thus able complete a binding legal contract in the United States. Carrite (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• For those who are late to the party and who are not familiar with the current ban: The community has banned AK for three months from the limited field of making decisions (accept/reject) at AfC.

AK is not, and has not been blocked for anything on en.Wiki.

Commons matters are for Commons to decide.

Oppose the nominator's request for a block.

Support a ban for six months for uploading, commenting on, or templating of any images on en.Wikipedia.

Strongly Recommend mentoring of en.Wiki Image Policy while the restriction is in force.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but how does a ban from AfC deal with AK's issues with CC-licences, which I thought was why this topic came up? -mattbuck (Talk) 06:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I think this proposal may be based on Andy reading too much into what Arctic Kangaroo said, namely "On a side note, all my works are always All rights reserved." They have elsewhere said that they don't see any problem with their text contributions, just with the images. So I wonder if AK realises that (in copyright lingo) the term "works" includes any copyrightable creation, including relatively short texts. I suspect he may have only been meaning his photos. Ideally I'd like some clarification of this from AK. In the meantime, I think an immediate project-wide block or ban would be overly hasty. I'm not aware of AK causing any real disruption here on Wikipedia relating to licensing, beyond some intemperate discussion. The licensing problem flared up at Commons, where AK is currently indefinitely blocked. I think that's sufficient admin action at present. Mentoring here could be useful, though. --Avenue (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose now per Kudpung and Avenue (an Admin in Commons). JKadavoor Jee 05:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. He's said he won't be uploading any more images. He's under a restriction in the other problem area, WP:AFC. That's enough. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef - I was the Commons admin who closed the AK deletion request as "keep". AK, on Commons, threatened and then followed through with vandalising the project. Here he shows he does not respect the idea behind CC licences, which every contribution to Wikimedia is licensed under. There is no difference between the licensing of an image and of text, and if he is incapable of abiding by the licence then he should not be allowed to make any more contributions under such a licence, which means he must not be allowed to contribute at all. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hope people here will not treat you in the same way you treat people when someone from here visits Commons and make a comment. JKadavoor Jee 07:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see the issue, that comment appears to be fair, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Kudpung. Insulam Simia (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose any block, in favour of Kudpung's suggestions . 188.222.98.201 (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'd just thought I'd say a license is not a contract [112]. The legal status of the contributions this editor has made are solid, despite their claims. Rather my support is on the grounds of lack of competence since they do not understand the license they are giving for content. If they want all rights reserved, they should edit elsewhere, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

It's not for me to finally decide consensus, as I've already expressed a very clear view above. But it seems possible to me that after an early rush of support !votes for a blanket ban or indef block, there has been a number of opposes more lately. So I'm going to propose an indefinite topic ban on AK uploading images to Wikipedia (something s/he has already said s/he will no longer do in any case.) I know some people have expressed support for this above, but thought it would be useful to gauge opinion formally. The last thing I would want to see is no consensus for any action!

Support topic ban as proposer. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I'm changing my view, because of AK's persistent (wilful?) misunderstanding displayed in the section below discussing an indef block (which I now support.) My attempt to suggest a topic ban here was meant to be helpful to AK but s/he seems to be insistent on making things worse foe him/herself rather than better. I can only extend so much AGF, I'm afraid. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This is coming far too early. I haven't even concluded; I'm still trying to understand it and discuss. I may still upload my images in future, but with the conditions mentioned at the top of the main thread. Also, I may still upload other unrelated images, even if not mine. For example, copyrighted but free work. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you will not upload images in future with "the conditions mentioned at the top of the main thread". All material submitted by contributors is required to meet the relevant licensing terms. They are not optional. They cannot be revoked. Just how many times do you have to be told this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that he does not understand CC at all, he's still talking nonsense about revoking licenses. He still fails to grasp it, despite in every edit box there is a well readable "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution". Since as far as I know every contribution to Wikimedia has to be CC, not only images, he should be banned from every WMF project. Everything else would be moot. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cyclopia: It appears that you haven't understood my concerns written above when it comes to text and image contribs. Those are 2 totally different things. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No they aren't. The license is the same, and you clearly don't understand it. You cannot revoke the license. The images you uploaded are still under CC license, and nothing that Commons can do will alter the fact. Anyone complying with the license terms can use your images, anywhere. Deleting them from Commons has no effect whatsoever regarding the legal status of the license. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - The editor is troubling with all the issues so far, but it seems premature to indef block/ban at this point. I'd say topic ban from images for now, and then revisit an indef block type thing if issues are still coming up after that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• My !vote was lost due to an edit conflict, here it is: Oppose current terms per Cyclopia's reasoning. The problem is AK's fundamental misunderstanding of the CC-BY-SA, and uploading images is only a part of that. He still believes that CC licenses can revoked, that he can upload images to Wikipedia rather than Commons and expect them never to be used anywhere else, etc. CtP (t • c) 11:29 am, Today (UTC−4)

• Support if it is an alternative to a total ban. I believe that Arctic Kangaroo's actions are a bitter reaction to an unexpected loss of his images. His comments about revoking the licenses are wishful thinking and an expression of frustration. His problems in the Afc were not the result of bad faith, but of overeagerness. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Anne, you misunderstood the entire image saga. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice job shooting yourself in the foot by attacking someone throwing you a lifeline. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Uploading media files to Wikipedia? I think it is a bit complicated. See this example. Even if I tried to protest copying of my files to Commons (in a humorous way); they did it, ignoring my protest. They even tried to delete the local copy after that. So my advice to AK is not to upload any media files even here; unless he has no problem for all reuses, including in Commons. JKadavoor Jee 15:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I found it strange too. A bunch of immoral people with no respect for others. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing 'immoral' in pointing out that you voluntarily uploaded material according to an irrevocable agreement, and accordingly cannot revoke it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Also there is nothing immoral in uploading a free image to Commons, and what is ridicolous and insane is first uploading something under a free license, and then whining when someone does something with the image which is completely permitted under the free license. If you don't want people messing with your images, don't upload them with a free license. I wonder if we should include Jkadavoor in the ban -complaining because they move a free image to Commons is nonsense and indicates a complete misunderstanding of what a free license is about. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Jee is clean. Don't get him involved. I'm more interested in my images, so let me just declare: The license has never been valid, and I never knew how serious the consequences were, so I'm asking for it to be revoked.

No blocks first. Let's discuss before taking any action.

✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, as you can see Arctic Kangaroo is still under the delusion that licenses can be revoked (by someone else, no less), despite having been told a dozen times. If someone had doubts AK didn't understand licensing at all, that is it. -- cyclopia^speak! 16:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Never been valid is the reason, and mind you, it's not used as an excuse. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You can not retract a license after the fact. It is a done thing. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• No, if Artic Kangaroo doesn't understand what they are agreeing to, that also applies to text contributions. They should be blocked and talk page access also revoked until he understands that all his contributions even to talk pages is CC-BY-SA. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed indef block

Arctic Kangaroo has just posted yet another assertion (above) that "The license has never been valid". This cannot possibly be interpreted as anything but conclusive evidence that AK does not understand the terms of the CC license, and is therefore not competent to contribute to Wikipedia. Either that, or we are being trolled, which to me looks an increasing possibility. Block/ban, and get rid of AK once and for all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Indef block. If the license was never valid in the first place, then it's no more valid here than at Wikimedia Commons, and therefore Arctic Kangaroo should not be allowed to contribute. And yes, the trolling possibility seems increasingly likely. CtP (t • c) 16:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• You may think I'm trolling, but I never trolled before. Your imagination must be running wild. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I still have much more text to contribute. You guys don't want and willing to sacrifice? Great. I'm more interested in my images, so let me just declare: The license has never been valid, and I never knew how serious the consequences were, so I'm asking for it to be revoked.

No blocks first. Let's discuss before taking any action.

Blocks are for prevention. The competence reason is invalid, actually. Just revoke the licenses, and as long as after this incident(s), I learn from my lesson, then everything is alright. No need to block. I already said, revoke the licenses, and any future license will be valid. Not enough careful consideration this time, and noobiness in this field, should be forgiven. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is exactly same stuff you posted above, to which I will offer the exact same response: the license cannot be revoked. End of story. CtP (t • c) 16:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• CC said so, so whatever you have to say, I'm forced to dump my morals into the bin. ?!?! ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have made many good-faith, good contributions to Wikipedia, so I simply don't understand why such a simple request is so difficult. What about take it more positively, as a "token of appreciation"? ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• This isn't a matter of morals, it's a matter of getting you to abide by the terms you irrevocably agreed to. Such a "simple request" is impossible because CC licenses cannot be revoked under any circumstances. How many times do you need to be told this? CtP (t • c) 16:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please stop putting words into my mouth. I did not irrevocably agreed to (those terms). ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:COMPETENCE, and block this obnoxious little brat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Seen. Is it that difficult? Just revoke the license, and the seas are calm again. I don't enjoy being unfriendly, or in a way being seen as "trolling" by other editors, but the situation is forcing me into it. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"obnoxious little brat"? Wow. Way to treat a kid. I hope Technoquat comes for you again... Insulam Simia (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And now we have an admission to trolling... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I'm not ttrolling, but I'm seen as doing the action of trolling. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License#7. Termination. CtP (t • c) 16:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

To all admins with fingers on the "Block" button: Don't block me first. Give me some time to digest above page first given by Chris, then I will get back to you ASAP. Sorry, I need to go sleep now. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Harsh action not needed. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Uninvolved lurker here. Either this is a WP:CIR issue, or trolling. It's been going on way too long, exhausting the community's patience, and is cyclical in its discussion. Something is not being understood, and until that happens Arctic Kangaroo's actions are problematic at best. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Can some admin block him already and spare us this nonsense? Most of his edits are vandalism reverts any bot can do. The few actually new text contributions he made (to articles) aren't worth pampering all this egotistical drama. A net negative for the project. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• As a matter of fact, I'm starting to shift more towards content gradually, and do all the meaningful stuff to expand the encyclopedia. If you don't appreciate it, :(. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• I have a few articles in my sandbox now, currently writing. I will be adding more. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with the indef block, sorry. Per WP:CIR. This has already eaten up too much time and energy of users who could be doing something useful with their wikipedia time. Arctic Kangaroo would be welcome to appeal the block at a later date, such as via the Standard offer. Bishonen | talk 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC).

• As mentioned above, it's easy to make the waters calm again. BTW, I have the haze article to get busy with. Lots of work that needs to be done. I'm trying to provide the most recent updates, and blocking indef would mean missing everything, even if I were to be unblocked. Even if I were blocked, one condition: revoke the license. However, this does not mean I agree to the block. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's already been explained to you countless times that the license is impossible to revoke. The fact that you continue to demand that it be revoked despite knowing that it's impossible leads us to believe you are trolling. CtP (t • c) 16:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Indef ban, block, whatever but revoke editing privileges to Arctic Kangaroo please, right now. Either he is trolling, or he is downright mentally incapable of understanding licensing terms. He said it himself: I simply don't understand why such a simple request is so difficult. In both cases, he cannot contribute. -- cyclopia^speak! 16:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block - claims of being 'forced' into trolling? Nonono. Simply not competent/mature enough to be a valid editor. GiantSnowman 16:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block per WP:CIR concerns. I tried to leave a door open for AK with a limited topic ban proposal, but s/he insists on pushing it shut from the wrong side! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block for lack of competence including lack of maturity. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block -- I wasn't convinced at first, but AK's responses in this thread are disturbing. A block would prevent any further issues and disruptions. Lettik (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Competence and understanding of these basic issues are a must to edit Wikipedia. Until AK understands them and is able to comply with them, there is no place for him here. This is causing more disruption that positive contributions. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Reaffirm Support indef Not sure if this is separate from the first proposal, but I still support indef for reasons of incompetence. This is why there should be clear age requirements to edit wikipedia, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support copied from above I came here expecting to oppose the indef, but comments like:

  Let me warn you guys, I'm gonna continue protesting until the file is deleted. This is bullshit. You people at Commons have total disregard and no respect for others who contribute. And no respect for creators' rights too. I'm not gonna give a damn on whatever shame this will cause, and also how embarrassing this can be. I just want it deleted, and after that, nobody is to upload it again, even if you make whatever minor tweaks with Photoshop or whatever, as nobody is given permission by me to upload the copyrighted work. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

make me question his competence. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Indef block for reasons of competence, per above. Carrite (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support block at least until after "Arctic Kangaroo" is of legal age. An indef block would be fine (it could be reconsidered if after "Arctic Kangaroo" turns of legal age the user expresses a more mature understanding of using Wikimedia and a wish to return and contribute responsibly). -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block again. Competence concerns have been confirmed with the above explosions from AK; they clearly don't get that CC applies to images and text, they're also refusing to get it either, and are attacking people left, right and centre. Arctic Kangaroo, you've only got yourself to blame for this entire farce. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Indef block, irrespective of how old he is. Ignorance is not Bliss and claiming it again and again wont help either.  A m i t  웃   19:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Reaffirm support - from section above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support until he will be able to demonstrate a real understanding of our rules. Cavarrone 20:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Indef block per WP:COMPETENCE, What part of "you agree that you will not unilaterally revoke or seek invalidation of any license that you have granted under these Terms of Use for text content or non-text media contributed to the Wikimedia Projects or features, even if you terminate use of our services." dont you understand? ..... -
  →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Still support TCN7JM 21:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per this and per the AFC drama last week. --Rschen7754 21:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocked sock created multiple poorly referenced stubs

HIDECCHI2013, a sock of Cyperuspapyrus, created several stubs before being blocked. The stubs are BLPs about athletes and reference the same foreign language sports statistics website. According to Google Translate, the references do not establish subject notability. Here's a partial list of articles:

• Vlad Munteanu (footballer born 1990)
• Alexandru Buziuc
• Sergiu Cristian Popovici
• Bogdan Chipirliu
• Alexandru Tudorie
• Lucian Murgoci

Would these merit a bulk-AFD, PRODs, or should I just leave them alone? Thanks, Andrew³²⁷ 15:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Technically these qualify for CSD G5 (created by a blocked user), but then the subjects seem in fact to be notable per WP:NSPORTS as members of a fully-professional league. But since the references are apparently not from the official Liga 1 site, I think you should go for a bulk-AfD. De728631 (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, much appreciated. Andrew³²⁷ 00:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:MilesMoney Personal attacks, non-reliable sources and general non-constructive editing.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:MilesMoney Has been repeatedly using Think Progress and The Daily Kos as reliable sources in a BLP article, and then resorting to personal attacks. On the talk page this has been discussed, but he does not seem to care.

A simple notification to him that The Daily Kos, Think Progress, and The Colbert Report are not reliable sources for BLP issues would be appreciated. Arzel (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User has been notified. Arzel (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't the context of the use be important? For example, I don't think Think Progress should be uniformly excluded as a source for BLP. A current discussion on thinkprogess, is taking place here. Second, as far as being insulting, I would be concerned about WP:boomerang.Casprings (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm new here but Arzel has been on my tail from day one. He's following me around, undoing my work, threatening me and trying to get me to stop editing. His edit comments are full of lies, half-truths and insults. I'm really sick of him. Please send him away. Thank you. MilesMoney (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you are new, perhaps you are unaware that your claims will be much more plausible with diffs demonstrating them. JanetteDoe (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The main focus of his attacks have been on Steve King, where he's repeatedly lied about lack of sources. If you look at the section he keeps cutting, it refs ThinkProgress, Washington Post, and DailyKos. It is part of a larger paragraph that refs the Humane Society and Agri-Pulse. One of the secondary sources brings up the coverage of this scandal on the Colbert Report, so we include a link to the primary source for reference. Everything is cited, balanced and accurate, so BLP is not involved.

Since you asked, I tried to grab some diffs, but I'm sure I missed some and included a few that aren't important.

Arzel edit-warring over Steve King:

"Not reliably sourced"

"Now it is just vandalism"

"These ARE NOT RELIABLE SOURCES."

Censoring scarlet letter quote that is easily sourced [113]

Censoring Boehner quote cited by Politico, using false argument

"Repeated inclusion of non-reliable sourcing" but there were already three reliable sources and I then added more

(there may be more edit-war diffs that I missed)

Bonus:

Censoring another article about Steve King by deleting it

Here's where he acts like he owns the article and stays just barely over the line while baiting:

Aggressively attacking Robofish

Insulting Casprings

Attacking Caspring's motives again

"what is your problem?"

"you need to stop editing WP now"

Accusations of activism

Unreasonably taking insult and telling me to stop editing

Bottom line: he doesn't want this accurate stuff in the article so he's trying to intimidate me into silence. Stop him. MilesMoney (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked over the diffs. I am not seeing censorship, hounding, or intimidation. They seem mostly to be Arzel trying to get the page and you to follow policy, with a little impatience and some slow motion edit warring. Some suggestions: Assume good faith WP:AGF, ie don't assume the worst about someone's motives. Neither you nor I nor anyone else can mind read and discussions where someone assumes that they could get acrimonious very quickly. The archives for this page are full of examples. Second suggestion: slow down and learn the rules around sourcing for WP:BLP. They can be tricky and not everyone is born knowing them. JanetteDoe (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Asking me to learn the rules is reasonable. Demanding that I stop editing -- as Arzel has -- is not. MilesMoney (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed and agreed. What's your position on being asked to slow down on editing biographies of living persons until you are more familiar with reliable sourcing rules? WP:BLP is a special case of reliable sourcing and can trip up even a very experienced editor. JanetteDoe (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have interacted with Miles a bit on a BLP. He is new, and obviously has a lot to learn policy-wise. But it strikes me as deeply wrong to sanction a noob (read: potential friend of and contributor to our community) for relatively garden variety bickering over a good-faith content dispute. This is particularly true since the above diffs indicate that Arzel is guilty of not only WP:BITE by harshly criticizing a newcomer but also of WP:PA against Miles, by saying Miles is "incapable of editing WP properly".

Given OP's own (and in my view, more egregious) violations of policy, and the need to provide noobs emotional encouragement as well as policy mentoring, I think it'd send the wrong message to formally warn or sanction Miles. I would however like to see Miles reiterate her or his commitment to abiding by WP:BLP standards, including in regards to sourcing, in any future edits to King's page, and to those of others. Steeletrap (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that many personal attacks renders a block really. What positives has the user given to this project? MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 11:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Am I the only person who questions Arzel's fundamental assertion - which frankly is at the heart of this issue? His claim that Think Progress and The Daily Kos are not reliable sources. Where does this bizarre notion come from and why is it being accepted as fact? It seems to me that if you can arbitrarily decide that partisan sources are inherently non-reliable, then we really should scrub ALL partisan sources cited throughout this project - not just the ones that some equally partisan individual objects to. If Think Progress and The Daily Kos are non-reliable to some, then others could make the identical claim about Fox News, Breitbart and/or World Net Daily. So where does it end? Do we also scrub the NY Post and the Wall Street Journal, since they're also Murdoch-owned, rendering them non-reliable to some? How about the New York Times and the major networks, whom some claim are also non-reliable? I mean, at what point do editors use common sense and put their own personal politics aside and actually let READERS decide what sources are reliable?! How arrogant that some editors try to act as censors, and use flimsy interpretations of WP rules to enforce their own biases. In reading WP's actual policy on RS, especially WP:NEWSORG under: "Biased or opinionated sources", it pretty clearly states that my common sense response is the actual policy! So if this policy is followed, doesn't that reduce the entire case against User:MilesMoney to nothing? I have no dog in this fight, but as an unbiased observer, perhaps Arzel's beef is with WP policies that can't be conveniently twisted to help advance partisan politics. Not with MilesMoney. Most notably, how can you folks attack MilesMoney for using a source when at this moment there is a heated debate on the very question of reliability re: ThinkProgress. By the way, the votes for "Reliable" are winning. Basically for citing the same policy as I have here. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:B4AF:4E3E:A87A:B57E (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue for discussing Reliable Source. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually you're wrong. If someone is being accused of using "non-reliable sources", then first there needs to be a clear understanding of what, according to WP policy, a "reliable source" IS. If the sources meet the policy - then this is done. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:A855:82AC:20B1:BF6 (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources are judged by the claim being asserted. At RS/N the "winning" side is that TP is citable for its opinions properly attributed as opinions, but not for assertion of "fact" in Wikipedia's voice. O suggest you read the discussion at RS/N. Collect (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone close an AfD?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southeast Asian haze; started by you can guess who... Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Not an admin, but the nomination was withdrawn - otherwise it would have been snow'd. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 17:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Message forgery

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Who is forging messages spamming the "Wikipedia Adventure". I certainly didn't write this, and I gather from Floquenbeam's reaction that he didn't write this.

As for "what's the admin action", whoever has figured out how to forge a contribution under the name of admin accounts needs to be dealt with. The integrity of an account's contribution list is critical.—Kww(talk) 17:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi folks, that was me. Those message were sent using the API as part of The Wikipedia Adventure. I created and signed the original message. Part of the game simulates interactions with other editors by sending messages to yourself. This all happens in userspace. I'd be happy to add a note about that early on in the game. Please remember that TWA is designed for extremely novice users. They will benefit from having easy links on their talk page, and the 'forged' messages all link back to declared legitimate alternate accounts that are clearly part of TWA. I'm happy to answer questions and try to clear up any confusion. Keep in mind that the onboarding game is not even ready for alpha-testing yet, so a lot is in flux. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a really interesting training tool you're developing for new editors, can't wait to see the finished product. To allay concerns can you confirm that no account has been compromised? Also, is it possible to put some sort of check in your code to make sure that no account other than your own runs the product while you're developing it? Thanks... Zad68 17:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Zad. No account is compromised, promise! If you check the page history you can see the exact mechanics. I'm going to write some very clear up front opt-in language about how in the onboarding game editors send messages to themself using the API. Anyone can 'test the game' even now, but the messages that it sends are all locked in the mediawiki namespace. So, this cannot be and is not used to just secretly send any messages to anyone at any time. It's only specifically for the game. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not signed as coming from a "declared legitimate account", it's signed as coming from me. That's forgery. Stop whatever software you are running immediately. As in now. You cannot run anything through the API signing messages as if they come from other people. How on earth did any part of the API even allow you to sign a contribution as coming from me or from Floquenbeam? How many other forged messages have you sent?—Kww(talk) 17:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Checking the diff now Kww. That message was sent by you because you were participating in The Wikipedia Adventure. I will make it abundantly clear that doing so means you will send messages to yourself using the API. It's my name on the message, but I'm happy to remove that and just use a datestamp instead. I'm working on clearing this up now. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not the fault of Ocaasi but, if I'm understanding it right, it does seems to be a pretty awful security hole in the API that it's possible to construct a page that will send a message from the account of an editor without their knowledge or specific permission. Zad68 17:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC) I see from the other responses here that code that accesses the API can only be developed by trusted users and there's plenty of precedent for it, so this isn't a problem. Zad68 18:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No one ever can or does send a message from someone else's account. An editor sends a message to themself, that's it. Anyone can 'fake a signature', that has nothing to do with the API. In the game the 'faked' signatures are from legitimate alternate accounts that are clearly marked as part of TWA. Does that clear up your concern? Or is there a component I'm not getting? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I understand. Once it was pointed out that Twinkle makes edits for you using your credentials, and this uses the same mechanism, I understood this isn't anything different. Zad68 18:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 This shows usages of one of the templates, and shows most examples. Chris857 (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Possibly not the best idea. If this were used to post messages on another user's talk page, it might not be noticed by the person "sending" it. I can only imagine how vandals might make use of such a mechanism. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This 'mechanism' is locked away in the mediawiki namespace where only admins can edit it. It's not for outside use outside of the guided tour. And clearly, from the feedback here, only with a clear disclaimer. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. If you are going to send messages as a part of that page, you have to clearly identify that hitting the button (or whatever) is going to cause a message to be generated. Making contributions by running Javascript under a logged-in account is permitted, but it can't be happening unexpectedly. Users are responsible for everything that goes into their contribution log, and javascript should not be used to send out messages without a user's knowledge.—Kww(talk) 17:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Kww, thank you for raising this concern. I've just added the following text to the very beginning of the tour: As part of the adventure, you will send some messages to your own Wikipedia pages automatically, just by advancing through the tour. How do you feel about that language? Clear enough? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

What is an API and why is whatever that is allowed to make edits in the name of other editors? --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Application programming interface (API). Chris857 (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I am afraid that article is gibberish to me, but I was also only mostly concerned about why it is allowed to make edits in the name of others. Even if it is admin-controlled only, I don't see the reason for such an allowance. We don't have any policies about such things? --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree what Saddhiyama said. I know lots of things about lots of things, but the Application programming interface may as well be gibberish for me too. There appears to be an unwarranted but implicit assumption of technical knowledge of this feature by all users. I dare to suggest that this is analogous to the unwarranted but implicit assumption of technical knowledge by all users of the much-vexed Visual Editor roll-out. --Shirt58 (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No one is making edits in the name of other editors. By advancing through the tour, editors send messages to themselves', and only in their own userspace'. The messages are 'ghost-signed' by characters in the game. If you click through to their 'fake' userpages it's very clearly just legitimate alternate account that's part of TWA and nothing else. To be sure, I have just added a bolded opt-in disclaimer to the first steps of the tour and am happy to place the same elsewhere around the game. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Precedent allows that (see my comment right under this one) Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly allowable, it's just that there was no warning. I didn't even remember that I had gone to look at the page, which is why I freaked out so badly when I saw the contribution in my history. It didn't trigger a message bar, so I found it an hour later. Any particular action that is going to cause an edit needs to be accompanied by a warning.—Kww(talk) 18:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

And how does these "precedents" comply to policy? Or where is the documentation to editors with no knowledge about this? I for one was not aware of any API making edits in my name until this thread. Despite Krenairs misguided attempts at chilling, it is indeed an issue that needs more coverage, especially for non-technical minded editors (which I assume is the majority of editors). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

We have so much JavaScript that API edits on behalf of the user (TW, CSDH, AFCH, etc.) that I don't think one more will suddenly show all of the vandals how to do it. And non-admins can't even add JavaScript that anyone else will run, right? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Adding JavaScript that runs directly on other people's accounts (without them copying anything) requires admin rights. Superm401 - Talk 18:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why do admins have this right? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a clear answer, but technically it's only because the tour lives in the mediawiki namespace. It might partly be a legacy issue: The first Guided Tour was Special:GettingStarted. If you're curious i'd ask Steven Walling or Matthew Flaschen, on the Editor Engagement Experiments team. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

So they can publish tools for the community, such as gadgets, changes to files like MediaWiki:Common.js, and in this case tours. It's similar to why admins have access to make other MediaWiki namespace changes when appropriate. Superm401 - Talk 03:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what happened here at User talk:Null? Chris857 (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a bug if someone advances to step 9 of mission 1 but isn't logged in (step 7 is registration). I will look into fixing it. Thanks for pointing it out. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably something like this. Sorry, I'll let myself out. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the API (And FFS don't bother making accusations about the security or abilities of the API if you don't even know what it is or how it works!!!). A wiki administrator has set up code that is run when you start a GuidedTour. It is run in your (the user's) browser, and therefore is authenticated as you. The code is at MediaWiki:Guidedtour-tour-twa1.js, and Ocaasi has added a notice about the edits it makes. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please point me to the policies regarding APIs making edits in the name of an editor. And please refrain from any further chilling attempts about who need not make objections about APIs. And you can keep your code to yourself, thank you very much . --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a developer on the overall GuidedTour extension, and I've talked with Ocaasi some about this tour. However, he is the main developer of the particular tour, which implements the message-sending functionality. First, as people said above, there is no compromise of admin accounts. It is only making an edit to the tour-taker's user talk page than simulating a signature by Ocaasi. Although Ocaasi (and the tour-taker in some cases) is admin, the tour is not taking any admin actions. The API is also not compromised, as it is intended to let users edit under their own account through the API. I would also note that the link points to the Wikipedia Adventure, so it is clear the message is connected. I would suggest a few things to make things clearer:

1. Consider using the /TWA subpages, as it used to do.
2. Make a more prominent notice of what's going on (as Ocaasi already said he would) before the message is left. Ideally, this would be on the step where the button click causes the message to be left.
3. In the message itself, explain that it is a simulated message left by The Wikipedia Adventure's tour. Add something like "Although this edit is made by {{PAGENAME}} it is made automatically by The Wikipedia Adventure as part of an introduction to tour editing" Either don't faux-sign it, or faux-sign by a different account, with a link to a user page explaining things further (User:The Wikipedia Adventure Message Demo?).
4. In the message summary, also note that it's an automatic message sent as as part of the tour (it mentions TWA, but not that it's an automatic message).

-- I hope this helps. Superm401 - Talk 18:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes, this is useful feedback. All of the talk messages besides the first one and last one indeed go to a /TWA subpage of the talk space. There are also some userpage edits for completion of certain steps in the game and skill acquisition. I am updating the edit summary now to say that it's a simulated, automatic message that's part of WP:TWA. I will also make sure there are clear notes on the userpages of all message signatures that this this is part of WP:TWA. I'm also going to add an icon on any tour step that sends an automatic message so users are informed before that happens. I'll introduce the icon on the first step of the game. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's a mockup of the disclosure in game: mission 1

And the disclaimer before the game: WP:TWA

The new edit summary is: New Message (simulated automatically as part of The Wikipedia Adventure)

Message signature userpage disclosure example: User:WillKomen

I hope this is addressing the issue clearly. -- Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Superm401. However you seem to make an assumption that the problem in this thread was that the API (whatever it is) was "taking any admin actions". That was not the issue. The issue was that some function was making edits in the name of another editor. This has nothing to do with "admin actions". A function that can make edits in the name of an editor seems to be compromising the account of that editor. It doesn't really matter for what reason this occurs, it matters how it can occur, and how this is not a big deal. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

When I was experimenting with this I also was surprised that the message on my talk page failed to clearly identify the source of the message. The message is signed WillKomen, but the user:WillKomen's contrib history doesn't show that it's the source of the message. I hope attribution can be made clearer so it's easy to follow what the source is of the TWA messages, since like other users I was trying to find the source and found it more difficult than necessary. I also think that the disclaimer and the note that VE is required should be in the black box at the start of the game rather than above it, preferably placed directly above or below the "start the adventure" button. --Pine^✉ 05:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Heh, it wouldn't be called an adventure if you didn't get pwnd a little... Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More self-hyping and disruption by Tim Sheridan

A dynamic IP has taken an interest in the Hyperlink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article; which is now semi-protected, so they have taken to soapboxing on the talk page. This is similar to their sock disruption last month at List of Internet pioneers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For those not familiar with the user, here's a sampling of prior discussions:

• From July 2013: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive805#Timothy Sheridan
• From July 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215#Proposing community ban of User:Timothy Sheridan
• From June 2010: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 60#Jimbo Major problem (contains references to old OTRS tickets)
• From December 2005: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ubie
• From November 2005: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Smokeless
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Timothy Sheridan

This request is mainly to get additional eyes to watch the pages involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

At Abmin (talk · contribs), the sock IPs are also blanking old talk-page discussion. I've semi-protected the user page and talk page of that sock user (blocked since 2010, so no need for further edits at this point) to deal with the disruptive behavior. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

moved to WP:AN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 02:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

TheShadowCrow

I don't believe I have interacted with this editor before, so excuse me if the chronology is not perfect. I also suggest people look through this diff of the editors talk page: [114] On the 28th TSC posted this message [115], which included unnecessary attacks on admins:

Here's something new: You said It doesn't work that way. about how the appeal works. What more needs to be said? EdJohnston and Gatoclass are two more names added to the list. It's only Wilkins, who's just thrown his credibility out the window, and Snowy. You guys keep coming up with this bull about how he couldn't have known about the sport exemption, but he simply didn't even know what the ban was. And considering he doesn't now see the need to remove it, means he can't be forgiven in that case anyway. There's no conspiracy, he's just a shitty Admin. ... What the fuck more do you need? Everyone says it should be lifted. When is it going to be?

On the 29th TSC posted on Bbb23 (talk · contribs)'s page [116] and then followed him to another editors talk page to complain that Bbb23 hadn't answered: [117]. On the 31st of July, TheShadowCrow (TSC), made this faulty request at AE against the admin GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) [118]. Yesterday TheShadowCrow made this vindictive comment to Bwilkins (talk · contribs) [119]. Today, TSC filed an AE request in which he attacks several admins [120]. During the AE he has tried to delete or change the comments of other editors: [121][122][123], despite several warnings not to do [124][125], TSC continued [126] and was blocked. Rather than accept his mistake, TSC has instead decided to argue in a WP:POINTY way about the definition of "remove or change", and blamed the blocking admin Sandstein (talk · contribs) [127]. I expect that if I look further back in time through the diffs I will be greeted with more problematic behaviour. Considering the path of disruption this editor is taking in these recent incidents, the lack of WP:CLUE and the WP:POINTYness I think an extension of the 24 hour block is called for. Thoughts? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Normally I'd AGF, given this post pre-block at Sandstein's page,[128] I'd assume ignorance over malice. It was very quick from warning to block and the user may not have had a chance to see it as given. However, another altering edit was made after that post,[129] so I don't really know what to think at this point. CIR maybe?ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

An increasingly problematic editor, I'm sorry to say. GiantSnowman 20:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, yes, the block was made after that edit, which was subsequent to the second warning, to stop TheShadowCrow from continuing to edit the statements made by others concerning the appeal. I don't think that any further admin action is needed. IRWolfie-, I don't see the point of this thread. If after the expiration of the brief block further problems occur, they can be addressed at that time, but discussing it now is just a waste of time on the part of all involved, notably the several people you still need to notify for mentioning them here.  Sandstein  20:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I know Sandstein, but let me clarify. Normally one doesn't go "Wait don't block me I didn't see the warning" and a few minutes later actually make another problematic edit. The first one I could see, but not the 17:59 edit which moved the content a full five minutes after the "don't block me" post at 17:54. He went ahead and did it again - after acknowledging it was wrong and after you made the clear warning. Either way, this editor has some problems that would be best worked out during this 24 hour block. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The specific block was to deal with a specific issue, which the editor is still arguing over. I see a pattern of behaviour here that has continued over several days. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• My preference would be to let the 24 hour block stand, watch what happens when it expires, and escalate quickly if it resumes. (I'd also prefer people stop throwing pebbles at him to get him to blow up again, but I understand that's hard when he's been busy throwing rocks himself.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• With the exception of BWilkins's outburst, any "pebbles" thrown at TSC have been deserved. And I would not describe TSC's conduct as "throwing rocks" but more like "throwing boulders". I think there are broader and more important issues that need to be aired. My intention, before seeing this thread, was to consider posting a proposal at WP:AN for a community ban, or, second choice, an indefinite block. I'm throwing that out here, not as a formal proposal, but just to get a sense of the community's reaction. Without supplying diffs, which I know I have to do, what has become very clear to me in the last few days - and it seems like longer - since TSC was unblocked at WP:AE, is that TSC wants to do what he wants to do, regardless of how many editors tell him he can't. His principal goal is to remove the topic ban, even though there's ample evidence the ban should continue. As he has put it to me, if he can't edit the articles he's prohibited from editing he might as well be indefinitely blocked. Worse, when he doesn't get his way, he retaliates in a variety of ways, including requesting the de-sysop of User:GiantSnowman, saying absolutely hateful things on BWilkins's talk, which I do not believe were provoked, and attacking any editor or admin who dares to disagree with him. Unless TSC does a 180, which I think is highly unlikely, I see nothing of value he has to offer the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I share that assessment, and see little hope of improvement. Deleting and altering other editors' posts was low. Would vote for a community ban if one were proposed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• This user comes across as an unhinged provocateur honestly, lashing out at anything and everything they perceive as an attack or an enemy...rather reminiscent of one ChildofMidnight, a name that'll ring a bell for some here. My opinion of people dips extremely quickly the more they try to nickel and dime their way around the edges of topic bans, sanctions and the like, and the more they scream at the drahmah boards when people weigh in on said problematic behavior. Absolutely just WP:NOTHERE. Tarc (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Your comment made me check the different user logs. TheShadowCrow registered after CoM's most recent block expired, so it's not a case of WP:EVADE by CoM. No comment on anything else, since I've not looked into TSC's actual behavior or anything else. Nyttend (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• No no, not alleging socking, just pointing out similar personalities. Completely different topic areas an interests that I can see. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, thought you were. Never before heard of TSC as far as I can remember, and I didn't check his topic areas/interests, so I wasn't saying anything based on those. Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• CoM had a bunch of good sides to him. As an editor, he's sorely missed (OK Tarc, not by everyone). In regard to the actual topic, I'm with Bbb. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The actual Civility Police

Can somebody please talk to User:DavidLeighEllis. I was just now bullshitting with a friend on my friend's talk, and found myself reverted by Davis who took exception to unparalementary language and the the overall tone. I hit back, twice, and realise this may well boomerang on me and Riggr Mortis; if we get blocked for this, fine, But....his actions really? He needs to be told to stop, now. Ceoil (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• What's the problem? DavidLeighEllis did this revert of your comment, then issued this warning on your talk. It's very understandable that someone could misinterpret that banter as a personal attack—in fact there is no reasonable way for a third party to interpret in any other fashion. Is there a pattern of unwarranted reverts/warnings? What should a third party do on seeing those comments? Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, this is what Ceoil wrote on my userpage, twice: "You can fuck off. Go play your jesus songs and wanna be cop fuckwittery somewhere else. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)" [130] [131]. Blatant attacks on editors' religion or lack thereof are considered especially severe violations of WP:NPA. Had Ceoil instead used an offensive anti-Jewish epithet, replacing his insult after the targeted editor attempted to remove it, he would no doubt have been blocked indefinitely for antisemitism. I ask for the Wikipedia standard on insulting editors perceived religions to be applied equitably to all faiths. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"What should a third party do on seeing those comments?"—take a cold shower, unless this becomes a pattern. Tony (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as Ceoil has been blocked what appears to be 5 times for similar behavior, I have blocked him for a period of 31 hours for the following combative behavior: [132], [133], [134]. I also advise DavidLeighEllis to drop the stick and move on. Tiptoety ^talk 02:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's an understandable misunderstanding followed by a Friday night overreaction, followed by some more overreactions. If Ceoil could state they understand why DavidLeighEllis responded the way they did (Ceoil doesn't have to agree with that response) and take back a couple of fucks and a jesus or two, then I see no reason not to unblock. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• That seems reasonable. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that's not how this one is going to go. Tiptoety ^talk 03:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have extended the block from 31 hours to 48 hours for that unfortunate piece of impulsiveness. It would have been much longer (read: indefinite) except that to his credit Ceoil did very quickly revert the worst of that comment. Much better to think coolly before hitting the Save button on comments like that however. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hurricane Electric Edit War

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A month or so ago I tagged several sources on the Hurricane Electric page as "self published" or "unreliable" without editing any of the actual page content per wikipedia policy. I then explained the issues on the talk page, again per wikipedia policy. This article has been historically extremely poorly sourced due to issues of notability since it's creation. It barely skated by on my AFD a year ago with a "keep-improve". folks promised back then they would improve the page. Yet, when i checked a year later the article is 1/4 the size it was when I nominated it. It's gotten worse. My goal with my source tags and "talk" comments was to get folks to bring the article up to snuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/173.164.190.177 reverted my changes, made a bunch of unfounded personal remarks about me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hurricane_Electric#Jgeddis_is_a_Cogent_shill_and_is_repeatedly_defacing_Hurricane_Electric.27s_page. Please put a temporary or indefinite block on the above anonymous user/IP for bad faith reverts, personal remarks, and nonconstructive edits. This kind of stuff is really inappropriate and unhelpful on wikipedia. Please consider protecting this page as wellJgeddis (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Be careful what you ask for. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Joe, I'm not sure your resorting to threats and personal remarks is particularly appropriate. Please try to raise the level of discourse. Thanks againJgeddis (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• I closed the OP's report at WP:ANEW. The only legitimate beef Jgeddis has is against the IP for the personal attack. The IP hasn't edited in a few days, but I've warned them not to attack other editors again. Otherwise, there's nothing to do here except to advise Jgeddis not to plaster the article with tags as they have attempted to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Late to the party. Honestly, Jgeddis could well be topic banned from that page. He has been editing it disruptively for over a year now and had done little else for the past two, basically turning into a WP:SPA. Blaming the other editors for not tolerating his nonsense anymore isn't exactly the best way forward. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Also pointing out the risk of a boomerang is hardly a "threat" or a "personal remark"... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    • After the above was closed, Jgeddis went to the article talk page to dispute its notability again [135]. I think an WP:IDHT reminder is needed. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Chevron Corporation edit

Hi, I'm asking some experienced editor(s) help here since I'm not used to edit WP:EN and this might be a difficult thing to manage. On 7/6, User:CorporateM made ±35 edits to Chevron Corporation, changing profoundly the page:

• Before: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chevron_Corporation&oldid=563153052
• After: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chevron_Corporation&oldid=563146344

On edit comments, it seems that he has moved most of the information into subpages.

In my opinion, it seems to me like a very smart way to hide a lot of controversial and negative information about Chevron to the general public. The current state of the page is really weak: a lot of information seems to be missing (I was looking for information about the Ecuador vs Chevron trial, which was nearly inexistant, when there was a very interesting section about it before User:CorporateM's edits).

Also, even if you may think pertinent to move most of the information to subpages (which I don't), the information remaining on the main article is not very well organized or written (the Environmental record section for example seems like a very weak list of non-related items, without creating a real "record").

I personally would recommend reverting the page to its 563153052 version, prior to User:CorporateM's edits. (But since it's nearly 1 month old, I'm not exactly sure what to do)

Thanks in advance,

--iNyar 02:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to notify editors that you bring up in ANI discussions. I have done so for you here: [136] Tazerdadog (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The Chevron article was before User:CorporateM's edits in awful shape as the text was too long overloaded with copyvio and COI issues. I agree that the current article needs some work and the bet way to do this is to clean-up and develop the subpages which then should be properly summarized in the main article. However, this issue is better to discuss at the article's talk page not here. Beagel (talk) 07:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute, and as such needs to be discussed at the article talk page, not ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

While it's not entirely clear, saying that I found a "smart way" to hide information seems to suggest the assumption of a COI that does not exist. I wonder if I also found a smart way to hide information about the organization's operations and history, which also have sub-articles. In any case, I have started a discussion on the article's Talk page in a more appropriate fashion about the article's structure. CorporateM (Talk) 14:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Capaldi image

Twelfth Doctor contains this image File:Twelfth_Doctor.jpg which has several deletion tags on it for improper fair use license. As this article is likely to be very high traffic very quickly, can we get a quick decision on the status of the file please? (Attempts to remove it from the article get reverted). --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Resolved
  --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the image which was deleted is the same one currently being used at File:Versions of the Doctor.jpg - is this correct? I wanted to review it first here; but if I'm correct and that's the same image, then we will need to roll back to the last good version in that collage as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It's the same image. I am going to restore a version with only eleven doctors -- Diannaa (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I brought this up at the talk page of the article. We are allowed fair use of a character but not an actor. If we can show RS that the actor is dressed in character then that may pass as fair use. I did try two emails to contact the actor because the only free image we have is lame IMHO. If we include fair use better images he may feel 'case resolved' and not provide one for us. We may be better off without until my emails possibly find a target.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked editor making personal attacks on his/her talk page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Talk page access revoked by Qwyrxian. Monty₈₄₅ 01:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Rodneye9110 was blocked on July 9, 2013 by User:Dennis Brown as a sockpuppet of User:Ryanspir. Today on his/her talk page this editor has made personal attacks against me [137]. I asked the editor to remove the attack and the response involved more accusations. I ask that this user have his or her talk page editing privileges removed. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the attacks, and told the editor that she/he may request an unblock and nothing else. Any further complaining or attacks will result in talk page access being revoked. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

And he reverted you.... [138]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cryellow

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The last days Cryellow (talk · contribs) started to behave disruptively. First at The Sherry-Netherland[139]. I don't know much about this, so I will contact Ken for this. The reason I'm reporting him/her is because at Pope Benedict XVI s/he has been inserting this text that clearly violates the BLP policy by inserting alleged ideas that he resigned for contentious reasons and not personal reasons, the worst part is that s/he believes that suggested information is factually correct. Also he violated the BLP policy with me, and possibly Elizium23, with the comment "sorry to shatter your Catholicism" at the moment he assumed that at least I was Catholic, when I'm not. While I was writting this report, he continued the BLP violations with this. It is clear that this user comes here to insert his/her points of view, and believes this place is a vehicle for doing that. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the edit warring. The BLP violations on Benedict XVI are unacceptable. Equally well this personal attack on BMK is unacceptable.[140] Mathsci (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

1) I am having problems with adding the following:

In the 1969 Academy Award winning movie "Midnight Cowboy," Dustin Hoffman's character Ratso Rizzo tells Joe Buck (Jon Voigt) that he can reach him at the "Sherry-Netherlands Hotel" after setting up a con job in which Joe is burned and Ratso, who is squatting in a condemned building and could never walk into the Sherry Netherland without being ejected let alone live there, doesn't want Joe to ever find him.

to this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sherry-Netherland

when I add it, Beyond my Ken immediately removes it. I opened up a TALK discussion on the matter and left the TALK open for MONTHS, after which the majority of those who commented agreed that my edit should remain, but still Beyond my Ken removes it.

SEE: the Sherry-Netherland Wikipedia page, Sherry-Netherland talk page, and MY (cryellow) talk page.

2) Same basic issue on this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI

where I am adding the following to the article:

It has recently been suggested that Pope Benedict XVI resigned because he himself was part of the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandals, that he was being blackmailed by those with proof of his complicity, and that he resigned to avoid a scandal.

and someone Tbhotch keeps edit warring with me to remove it. I have referenced two sources, and yet he keeps undoing my revision.

---

I think the over all issue is that you have people like Tbhotch and Beyond my Ken who think they OWN Wikipedia, and bully less frequent users into removing any edits to what they view as “their” Wikipedia articles. Cryellow (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This kind of edit is highly disruptive and shows zero knowledge of WP:BLP.[141] Mathsci (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I looked over Beyond my Ken's TALK page, and it is one torrential dispute after another where Beyond my Ken reverts edits to "his" Wikipedia pages, and then foulmouths the users who dare to debate him. Cryellow (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? And that gives you the right to insert smearing speculation about Benedict XVI being involved in child abuse; and independently to make puerile personal attacks on BMK? Mathsci (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The issues here are whether or not my edits should remain. On the Sherry Netherland page, the edit should remain after the majority of those who considered it, even Beyond my Ken's "buddy" felt that it should remain.

Whether my edit remains on the Pope Benedict XVI page will depend on whether it is okay to include substantiated but not absolutely verified facts about a person in a biography. As a matter of fact, there is NO biography of any historical figure that does not include some speculation in it, and for you to say that biographies do not include speculation would mean then that there need be only one version of a biography of a person, which is absurd. You may pick up ten different biographies of John Lennon for example, and in some it is claimed that he had a consummated sexual affair with Brian Epstein, and in others this claim is disputed. Yet, all of the biographies are still valid ones. Cryellow (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue is how disruptive your edits are at the moment. You should not be making these infantile personal attacks. Please reread WP:NPA and WP:BLP, and note that the "L" there stands for "living". Lennon and Epstein died some time ago. Ratzinger is still alive. Mathsci (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia takes a dim view of BLP violations. Continuing disruption in this fashion isn't advisable. Taroaldo ✉ 08:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• The Cryellow account was created in March 2008, yet the editor has not learned anything about core Wikipedia policies. Inserting "it has been suggested" in front of an extreme claim does not entitle an editor to violate WP:BLP, WP:EW, and WP:RS. Would an admin please issue a final warning and close this. Cryellow should ask at WP:HELPDESK for basic information about policies in order to avoid strong sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• The situation at The Sherry-Netherland is fairly simple. Cryellow wants to include what I believe is a trivial mention of the hotel in the film Midnight Cowboy. Two other editors (Elizium23 and Jim.henderson) agree that it should not be in the article, while one editor (an IP who describes himself as a "good friend" of Cryellow, who has never edited before or after) agreed with Cryellow. Cryellow asked for a third opinion, and got one from TransporterMan, who agreed that the entry should not be in the article. Despite this clear consensus against him, Cryellow continued to attempt to insert the information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • As for the Pope Benedict situation: the source Cryellow provided is a blog, and therefore not a reliable source according to our standards. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No one here seems to care much about what Beyond my Ken or Tbhotch thinks. Tbhotch created this page with much fanfare and threats and it is turning out to be a big *yawn. Cryellow (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And BTW, the Sherry Netherland dispute was posted on the Talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Sherry-Netherland

for that article on December 24, 2012. On 12/26/12, an editor came along and agreed that my edit should remain. That's one vote for me! Then, on 12/29/2012, Beyond my Ken's OWN FRIEND Jim.henderson came along and agreed with retaining my edit, but proposed some compromise language such as "In the film Midnight Cowboy, impoverished con man Ratso Rizzo claims to live at this hotel." That's a half vote for me! again. Then on 1/17/13, another editor came along and voted that my edit should remain AS IS - making a total of 2 1/2 votes in my favor, and none (other than of course Ken's) against me (but then Ken's vote is cancelled by mine, so in sum we have 2 1/2 votes for me, 0 against).

FINALLY on July 25, 2013, after waiting six additional months for any further comments - and none were posted - I reverted the edit. I would say leaving the comment period for this matter open for seven months, during which time 2 1/2 votes were in my favor and none against, is long enough to have settled the dispute.

And then of course, immediately after I reverted the matter Beyond my Ken panicked and came on, immediately removed my material, and brought in a couple of his hacks and cronies (TransporterMan and Elizium23) who voted against my material.

But - how long must a TALK dispute remain open before the matter is settled? I waited patiently for seven months and did not revert my edit until, during those seven months, every editor who stepped up agreed with my material. Why does it matter that AFTER the dispute was settled that a couple of editors came along to try to put in their two cents worth ("too little, too late, and predictably pro-Ken editors.") Where were these editors while the dispute was ongoing?

Then as far as the Pope Benedict XVI material it does not refer merely to a blog, but to newspapers articles in Italian newspapers. If the quantity of references is at issue, I can certainly add more references for the material. How about if I add this CNN reference? Cryellow (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If you try to reinsert that poorly sourced and dubious content about Ratzinger, your account would almost certainly be blocked for repeated violations of WP:BLP. Please also stop making personal attacks on other wikipedians: please do not refer to other editors as "hacks and cronies". Mathsci (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

When I have the time, Kirk, I'll escalate the Sherry Netherland matter although already settled, to the next level. I'll open a dispute on the Pope Benedict XVI material. I don't live on Wikipedia and it is pretty clear who does, which is why certain editors take things too personally and think that they OWN content. This exercise here continues to be a big yawn and not relevant to the real issue of whether or not the material is germane and should remain. (Damn! that sh*t rimes.) Cryellow (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Everything you have posted here denotes something, you think you are right regardless if you are right. I don't care about the hotel edit-war, but neither about Ratzinger personal life. Whichever my personal views in religion are, I care about Wikipedia when I am in Wikipedia, and I don't mix my opinions over a topic with my life here. In this hours did you read WP:BLP? In case you haven't I will resume it for you: "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source ... Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The material is challengeable, questionable, negative and speculative about a living person, it is not that I own the article, in the first place because I am not watching the article and your edit was filtered by Huggle when I was in my routinary checking of vandalism. The sources you present have pure speculation about an event, with poor or no real evidence this to say it is or "may be" the reason why Ratzinger resigned. You did an absurd comparison with Lennon-Epstein, absurd because L-E died years ago and BLP doesn't apply to them, but you didn't care to read their articles. Epstein was openly gay, he with his own mouth revealed it; Lennon, according to his article, said once: "Well, it was almost a love affair, but not quite. It was never consummated. But it was a pretty intense relationship. It was my first experience with a homosexual that I was conscious was homosexual...", apparently you are not reading. Do you have any evidence of this? Because if you can't have a reliable reference, being Ratzinger himself or his staff, of having other preferences or that he resigned for polemical reasons, you can't simple say 'I am going to search for more references' to justify you POV pushing, because it is what you are doing, and it is demostrated here: "Whether my edit remains on the Pope Benedict XVI page will depend on whether it is okay to include substantiated but not absolutely verified facts" (italics mine), if it is not an "absolutely verified fact", why should we post a BLP violation with possibilities of a legal sue from Ratzinger against the Wikimedia Foundation for defamation or being a vehicle to allow defamation? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be useful for User:Cryellow to read WP:BATTLEGROUND, because his comments above -- "One vote for me!" etc. -- are not those of an editor who appears interested in discussion, compromise or consensus, they appeear instead to be the the comments of an editor who believes he is in the right, and that everyone opposed to him is wrong. This is the kind of editor we cannot afford to have here, and I'm afraid that it may be necessary to -- at some point or another -- indef block him from further editing. I'm sure that the admin corps would prefer to give him a chance to redeem himself before that happens, and I have no objection to that, but I do think it's important to make it clear to him that his attitude towards editing is not ideal, and is likely to lead to his being blocked in the near future. As usual, such warnings carry more weight if they come from an admin, rather than from a rank-and-file editor such as myself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

For those interested in this situation, it's informative to look at an earlier version of User talk:Cryellow, which provides some insight into Cryellow's original purpose in editing Wikipedia, which appears to have been promotional in nature. [142]. Although he does not appear to have made promotional edits since, it's clear from the present circumstances that he really never has understood what we're here to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just read through this thread again and caught something I missed before: the idea that I (of all people) have "hacks and cronies" at my beck and call gave me a good laugh. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Continued disruption

I have reopened this report because Cryellow (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is continuing to add material to Benedict XVI that violates WP:BLP. Mathsci (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to discuss this matter. If you believe that the material does not belong then open an arbitration or some such. The reason that this matter closed without any admin input is that there is no violation. You do not jump straight to an admin violation simply because you disagree over inclusion or exclusion of material on Wikipedia.

The current edit on Pope Benedict XVI's page is: [143] which is absolutely true. Cryellow (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution for the Pope Benedict XVI matter has been opened. Cryellow (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Simply put, Cryellow's editing has been disruptive and continues to be so. There is no scope for "dispute resolution", particularly in the malformed way that Cryellow has just attempted on WP:DRN. [144] If they were a good faith editor (see their comments above in the main thread), they would have made a request at WP:BLPN. My own feeling is that at some stage their account is likely to be indefinitely blocked. Their recent editing history shows a fairly classic example of WP:NOTHERE. Mathsci (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mathsci. Cryellow has essentially burned through their chance. I'm favoring an indef block for disruption. 108.23.54.2 (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Note: this IP has made no other edits.

• Cryellow: chronic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, complete disregard of WP:BLP and WP:RS, vindictive attitude. Block; based upon user history, indef looks warranted. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is open on this matter. The issue is whether or not to include the edit, which has been revised actually as recently as today and is not even the same edit as was originally submitted a week ago. Nothing more to this matter than that. Don't make a federal case out of it. Cryellow (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your edit is completely different; instead of a single unreliable source, it cites two news articles and asserts things which aren't even in those articles! The edit is prima facie bad and you are edit-warring to keep it in. Elizium23 (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Evidence by TransporterMan: In the first part of this discussion, Cryellow says, "Beyond my Ken panicked and came on, immediately removed my material, and brought in a couple of his hacks and cronies (TransporterMan and Elizium23) who voted against my material." I resent that wholly-unfounded accusation. I'm one of the most active volunteers at the Third Opinion project and merely saw the request for a 3O — which Cryellow had listed — listed at the 3O site and responded to it. If Cryellow has evidence of collusion between Beyond My Ken and me, I would urge him to bring it forth. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the other post that was only about one edit from 108.23.54.2, I meant to say more as to why Cryellow should be given a block, but forgot and that's why there's only one edit. 108.23.54.2 (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

It's unfortunate that this thread hasn't received any admin attention (not that I blame anybody, we don't get paid much), because that fact seems to have encouraged Cryellow to reject all advice, criticism, and references to policy from experienced editors, on their own page as well as here, and to continue inserting egregious BLP violations on Pope Benedict XVI. I've blocked for 31 hours after looking only at the history of that page, together with the discussions on Cryellow's talk. I haven't had time to take stock of the other issues mentioned above; I will later. (Provided I get a raise.) Bishonen | talk 22:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC).

Update: I have warned Cryellow on their page to be more polite when s/he returns from the block. Even in this thread, we see personal attacks and general belligerence. Bishonen | talk 09:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accusations at Talk:March Against Monsanto that need to be resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a difficult POV dispute at this talk page. In the discussion thread at Talk:March Against Monsanto#Fringe?, some editors have accused other editors of being paid advocates for Monsanto and pushing a pro-Monsanto POV, as well as some implied accusations of WP:SOCK violations. The main statement of these accusations is this: [145]. Three of the accused editors have explicitly denied the accusations: [146], [147], and [148]. I have attempted to suggest that these concerns be raised at the appropriate noticeboards instead of repeating them at the article talk page: [149]. Unfortunately, all that is happening is that the accusations are being repeated and the back-and-forth is continuing on the article talk page, and it is making it very difficult to get to any consensus about content.

If the accusations are true, then offending editors are violating WP:NPOV and WP:COI. If the accusations are groundless, then those continuing to make the accusations are violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Whatever the case may be, I think that it needs to be figured out (to the extent of what can be determined on-Wiki) and dealt with (at least to the point of moving the accusations to the proper place). I have put a link to here on the article talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion began when another editor raised the point that Monsanto had recently chosen Fleishman-Hillard to handle their PR in the wake of the protests against the company. I mentioned that this thing has been going on for a long time, with George Monbiot noting in "The Covert Biotech War" that Monsanto shills were running around the Internet in 2002 playing all sorts of dirty tricks. Is there some kind of PR operation occurring on Wikipedia? It's possible. Reliably sourced content critical of Monsanto is removed on daily basis by editors who seem to just "show up" out of the blue from absolutely nowhere. Firemylasers (talk · contribs) is one of the latest obvious WP:SPA's. Then you've got SpectraValor (talk · contribs), whose first edit was to remove a reference to the Monsanto Protection Act in the lead section.[150] User:Thargor Orlando has been at this nonsense for months, recently removing the fact that the "HCIA is "partly funded by Monsanto"[151] while three editors, SpectraValor, User:Arzel, and User:Thargor Orlando all removed the fact that "American journalist Jake Tapper of CNN says that Monsanto has "a history of questionable ethics practices and close ties to the government".[[152]][153][154] Today, Thargor went hog wild, removing critical commentary about Monsanto and the media from The Louisiana Weekly, Thom Hartmann, and the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune, replacing it with an absolutely hilarious personal paraphrase that makes no sense to any human being on the planet,[155] except for maybe SpectraValor who tried the same thing just a few days ago[156] and User:Alexbrn who tried it earlier in the month.[157] I have dozens more of these diffs showing anything critical about Monsanto is deleted, watered down, or altered in a way that it no longer reflects the original source, while new user accounts and users who have never touched this article before seem to just "appear" out of the blue to revert to each other's versions. They tried to get the article deleted and they failed.[158] Now they are trying to delete the content. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You've pointed out that an obvious SPA is an obvious SPA. Great. You've also accused a number of other editors, including some who have been here for quite a long time, of being "paid shills" simply because they disagree with you on an article about an event that's only a few months old. This is eminently unproductive. You certainly managed to run me away from the article by escalating the rhetoric.

This may be an issue that some people have strong feelings about, but that's no excuse for broadly failing to remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. a13ean (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A13ean, I'm sorry you feel falsely accused, and perhaps my wording confused you, but you did remove the content about the march sourced to the AP in this diff while replacing it with off-topic sources that have nothing to do with this subject in violation of WP:NOR. Yes, you left the AP source in the article, but the content it cited was no longer there. Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I changed

Currently in the US most corn, soybean and cotton are genetically modified crops. Critics say GMOs can lead to serious health problems and cause harm to the environment. Though the US government and many scientists say the technology is safe, health advocates have recently been pushing for mandatory GMO labeling.[13] Although 90% of Americans favor GMO labeling, attempts to require labeling have been unsuccessful.[14]

to this

Most of the corn, soybeans and cotton currently grown in the United States are genetically modified. There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] However, critics have objected to GM foods on several grounds, including safety issues,[16] ecological concerns, and economic concerns raised by the fact GM plants (and potentially animals) that are food sources are subject to intellectual property law. Some advocates have pushed for mandatory GMO labeling, [22] and while 90% of Americans favor GMO labeling, attempts to require labeling have been unsuccessful.[23]'

I understand that you objected to the sourced statement I added about the scientific consensus. However, the rest of my edit in that section only expands on the concerns of the protestors, and continues to rely on the AP source in question. We disagree on one point; you could have addressed it in a reasonable manner. Instead you responded with this. This is no way to act in a collaborative effort. a13ean (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas has acted with extreme hostility towards myself and has accused me of being a SPA, editing in bad faith, trolling, astroturfing, etc numerous times. Here are some diffs: [159] (unfounded accusation of bad faith), [160] (direct accusation of being some sort of astroturf/shill), [161] (direct accusation of being here to disrupt), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566206688&oldid=566204885 (direct accusation of being SPA in a manner that violates AGF), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566376264&oldid=566371720 (accusation of trolling, astroturfing, bad faith, etc).

Here's two more general examples of this kind of behavior (with other users/generalized): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566199730&oldid=566180385 (accusation of grand conspiracy to protest Monsanto or something), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566200209&oldid=566199730 (same thing but slightly more direct).

At this point I'm attempting to back away, but Viriditas babysitting of the article and constant attacks mean that it is impossible to discuss anything with the other editors without Viriditas popping up and interfering. He/she is being extremely disruptive and is actively denying that WP:FRINGE claims are fringe, as well as attempting to spread discredited studies and completely ignoring the scientific evidence on the matter.

To be quite frank I am disappointed with this reaction. I was hoping to have a discussion over the page's issues, not some sort of massive argument over simple things like WP:FRINGE claims. And for the record I don't work for Monsanto, or a PR firm, or any of the places that Viriditas seems to think I work for, and am quite willing to prove it through whatever means are necessary if desired - these accusations are absurd. Firemylasers (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your account was created approximately a year ago on 18 July 2012.[162] You never used it, preferring to let it "sleep" until 22 July 2013,[163] at which point you launched right into attacking the reliably sourced "Monsanto Protection Act" material (HR 933) in another thread.[164] You've also admitted[165] to creating another sleeper account, User:Garzfoth, which you created on April 30.[166] Further, you have disrupted virtually every discussion on the talk page, distracting away from the topic under discussion and efforts towards article improvement by attacking every editor who disagrees with your efforts to remove reliable sources as a "pseudoscientist" promoting "fringe" beliefs. Meanwhile, you continue to "challenge" every reliable source that criticizes Monsanto or quotes members of the March Against Monsanto, and claim that we can't write about this topic because the reliable sources violate every policy and guideline. The fact that you are an SPA dedicated to disrupting the talk page and the fact that you have admitted creating multiple accounts tells me that there are strict limits to AGF. You created your account a year ago, didn't use it, then created another account in April, and didn't use it. That implies questionable intent, and as any SPI/CU can tell you, follows the typical pattern. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In Viriditas' defence, his edits seem to me to be broadly in line with a coherent view of the Topic and tend toward a coherent article which could be defended as being in-line with WP policies ... although I think there are some problems to be resolved over whether/how fringe guidance applies to some aspects of the content. The problem is that it is difficult to have a genuine discussion when his assumption is that any holder of differing views is operating in bad faith (and I see I am included in his rogues' gallery above) - this makes progress towards consensus difficult or impossible because of the often combative and personalized nature of interactions with him on the Talk page (and he is not the only editor behaving in a less-than-civil fashion). The bad behaviour around this article is a problem which needs to be resolved. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I noted that you, SpectraValor, and Thargor all "coincidentally" happened to making similar edits to the same section stretched out over a period of a month, and this is not an isolated incident. Thargor might make an edit and talk page argument, disappear, than SpectraValor would come back and make similar edits and similar talk page arguments, and then disappear, and the cycle would repeat. Just yesterday, you complained on the talk page about the so-called pseudoscience in the article and how it needed to be balanced out. I asked you to point out this pseudoscience for me, and you could not, so you went ahead and added it to the article to support your argument.[167] Ironically, you engaged in WP:PROFRINGE while at the same time complaining about it. When confronted with this, you argued that we shouldn't whitewash their beliefs. So this kind of editing also appears to be disruptive. You complain about fringe concepts, and when asked to identify them, you fail to find them, so you decide to add them to the article! That's very strange editing behavior. Viriditas (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in the wiki rules prohibits possessing multiple accounts. I have

A) Disclosed the only other account I have.

B) Have NO edits on the other account.

C) Am ONLY using THIS account.

D) Am using the account that was created FIRST.

E) Have done NOTHING to warrant these repeated accusations of grand conspiracy, astroturfing, bad faith, etc.

As such your accusations of bad faith are completely unfounded. There are no rules against a delay between account creation and first edit. You have NO excuse for your repeated attacks, nor does choosing MaM as my first article to contribute to mean that I am some sort of astroturfer or acting in bad faith. YOU have disrupted EVERY conversation ever created on that page - blaming it on me is highly amusing but ridiculous. I am not the one who decides to edit war over every minor change to the article. In fact I have not even made any contribs to the article proper - I wanted to discuss it on the talk page first, and instead was met with EXTREME hostility from you in reaction to every single comment I made. Your claims that I challenge every reliable source are false, as your sources are not reliable, and you have been actively attempting to use discredited research in order to justify your promotion of WP:FRINGE claims. You have attacked every editor on the page for attempting to provide a NPOV on the article. In no way am I dedicated to disrupting the talk page - in fact I argue the opposite, I argue that YOU are dedicated to edit warring your opinions into the article, disrupting every single attempt to discuss the article, pushing pseudoscience, and adding as many opinion pieces as possible in while simultaneously excluding any opinion pieces that you dislike. In no way are your violations of AGF justified by my actions. Firemylasers (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You have not made any contribs to any article on Wikipedia under this account except the talk page, highlighting the SPA issue I've raised. My "opinions" are not in this or any other article, Firemylasers. The entire purpose of your account seems to be to attack editors who are trying to actually improve the topic area. Every discussion you've participated in involves attacking reliable sources. Then when editors respond, you attack the editors. And you post large, unformatted, one line screeds that scrolls the discussion right off the page and makes it impossible to discuss anything with you. Further, you continue to make an enormous number of absurd and patently false claims, such as claiming that the COI between employees of Monsanto and the government is a "conspiracy theory", that economic losses by small farmers faced with Monsanto's patent rights and monopoly of the food supply "lacks evidence", and that every reliable source which describes the "Monsanto Protection Act" is a "misinterpretation". What you don't get is that we don't write from an editorial POV, we write from the POV of the sources and we attribute those views to the sources. This fact seems to keep eluding you, hence your continuing problem dealing with what you perceive as "conspiracy", "pseudooscience" and "fringe" theories. We are not dealing with editorial opinions, we are dealing with the opinions of the sources. Is this making sense yet? Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have avoided making contribs specifically to avoid having an edit war, which has been your default response to any contrib that you disagee with. I was initially going to follow the "be bold" directive, but after reading the page's edit history I decided to take it to talk. Your claim that the entire purpose of my account is to attack editors is completely false - you may notice from my contribs that I agree with other editors on the page and have attempted to discuss issues with the page, which was made rather difficult from your appearance and subsequent personal attacks and attempt at pushing fringe claims. The definition of reliable source is not yours to write Viritidas. You've been attempting to justify your fringe views with fringe sources. I merely pointed how said sources were pseudoscience/fringe. My responses were detailed because I felt that including detail and citing sources would help explain the issue in detail - unlike your responses, most of which consisted of blatant abuse of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and outright denialism of my sources. Claiming that a COI had been acted upon is what I was calling a conspiracy - this is exactly what that claim was implying. The economic losses indeed lack evidence, as was proven by OSGATA et al. v. Monsanto and the subsequent appeals. Your "reliable" sources on HR 933 were biased and did not provide a NPOV, and you explicitly attempted to exclude reputable sources such as NPR on the grounds that they were not providing the biased narrative used by a certain article. You have repeatably reverted changes made by other editors in order to ensure that the article is littered with opinion pieces and devoid of NPOV in as many sections as possible. Firemylasers (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

According to you, all sources that criticize Monsanto or represent the POV of the protesters and their march (the actual subject of the article in question!!) are "biased" and are full of "pseudoscience", "fringe", and "conspiracies". Such is the extent of your conversational skills. It sounds to me like you really need to read up on WP:NPOV before doing any editing. Again, we do not write from the POV of editors, we write from the POV of the sources. You keep confusing the two. It's really funny that you keep accusing me of POV pushing when all I am doing is representing the sources about the subject. On the other hand, you keep arguing that we cannot use this or that reliable source because you know as an editor it is "fringe", "conspiratorial", "pseudoscientific", or "lacks evidence". But that's not how we use sources. In fact, we use sources entirely independently of what editors believe or think about them. Whether you think sources are "biased" about HR 933 or not is irrelevant. We represent their significant views. Viriditas (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Look at the aggression in this comment. (Viriditas has been using POV sources) IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. There is no "aggression" in my comment at all, and all sources are POV. You appear to share the same confusion as Firemylasers. All sources have a POV. Our job as editors is to best represent that POV using the framework of our policies and guidelines. This means using reliable sources. And when we are dealing with a topic about the March Against Monsanto, it is important to best use sources about the subject to avoid OR. We don't use sources about other subjects that have nothing to do with the topic we are writing about (which several editors, including the OP keep doing). I hope that makes sense. When we write about the March Against Monsanto, we use sources about the March Against Monsanto. Those sources will inevitably contain a POV that an editor disagrees with. Our job then becomes one of figuring out how to best represent that POV based "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias". It's actually very simple, but some editors bring so much baggage to the job, they begin to engage in a dispute about the content rather than describing what the sources say about the dispute. Seriously, this isn't rocket science. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As an initial disclaimer, I should mention I have had interactions with Viritidas before and I've never thought much of the way they interact with other editors and explain their POV. But I have to agree that some of Viritidas's accusations seem careless at best. For example, Viritidas accuses 'they' of trying to get the article deleted.

But looking at the linked AFD, of those who nominated to delete, we have the nominator who later agreed after the article was improved to keep it (although still felt the AFD was justified). RMcC remains involved in the article talk page but otherwise is an experienced editored with a wide range of interests, and in fact that's the only involvement a related area I noticed [168].

We have User:Matticusmadness who's comment may have been a little quirky but seems to have had little or no involvement in the subject area, instead involved in other things particular video game related article and they do sometimes participate in the AFD process [169] and has edited as an IP before again with no evidence of involvement in the topic area ignoring vandalism apparently from others using the IP.

We have User:Jytdog who does have a fair amount of involvement in this area but also other areas related to the health, medical and biological sciences, particularly from what I can see in opposition to fringe and pseudoscience and poorly sources claims; and other related areas like IP law and economics. They are a somewhat experienced editor including regular deleting spam like stuff.

Finally we have User:IRWolfie- who also has a fair amount of involvement in the area but also other science related areas particularly it looks like, fringe science and pseudoscience areas [170] as well as other stuff, for example, tech (IT) related areas and is also a fairly experienced editor.

There is one more editor who was initially a weak delete, later changed to a weak keep who I'm not mentioning. Meanwhile there was apparent external canvassing from someone with little involvement with wikipedia in favour of the 'keep'. While the 'keep' seems to stand regardless of the canvassing, it points even more to the suggestion there was any conspiracy involved in the AFD being unfounded considering the evidence shows none of the editors suggesting delete being SPAs or having any evidence of a COI.

While this doesn't preclude some of the editors named by Viritidas above as problematic SPAs and who's editing is worthy of analysis, it does demonstrate the problem when Viriditas accuses anyone who disagrees with them or undertakes edits they disagree with as being potential Monsanto shills, without even considering the editor's history and experience, and raises the likely negative effect this will have on any discussion.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I don't mind you mentioning me. I've had little-to-no involvement in the topic area in question but spend plenty of time at AFD. I was particularly put out by the suggestion that I was somehow a Monsanto "agent" trying to "censor" debate through standard WP processes and said so. It was a rediculous suggestion and one made by both SPA IPs and experienced editors alike, which was disappointing. I would feel the same if those sorts of things were still being thrown around on the talk page. Stalwart111 12:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I note those accusations continue even here, above - "They tried to get the article deleted and they failed". Lumping experienced and uninvolved editors in with silly, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about pro-Monsanto "agents". We - those who initially supported the deletion of an article about an event that clearly failed WP:EVENT - are not part of some giant pro-GMO conspiracy. We are editors who tried to uphold policy in the face of hysterical and emotional personal attacks at that AFD from (ironically) clearly anti-Monsanto SPAs. Stalwart111 13:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall ever discussing you here, nor did I participate in the AFD. But, I am curious now. How do you maintain that this failed WP:EVENT when we have reliable sources saying just the opposite, commenting on its impact, its influence, and its lasting legacy? This is what irks me the most. I think the sources are at odds with your personal opinion, and we write articles (and determine their notability) from the sources, not from personal beliefs. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You discussed me when you referred to the "they" who supported deleting the article, as I initially did. And I don't "maintain" that view - that's my point. As I said above - initially. The original article was a horrible mess started only days after the event with basically only social media for sources. As the AFD continued, coverage increased and some of that substantiated a potential legacy. Thus my changed !vote (and the nom's). Despite our obvious willingness to be convinced (would a "Monsanto agent" be so willing?), we were still accused of trying to "censor" the subject organisation. Be glad you didn't participate - it was pretty disgraceful behaviour - but don't make the mistake of jumping on the bandwagon now. Stalwart111 14:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved editor I've been watching the discussion and edits for a only short period, but find the statements made by Viriditas to reflect pertinent aspects of the situation from a balanced perspective with respect to policy covering content. With respect to the SPA comments, looking at the this Special:Contributions/Firemylasers would seem to support that observation.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but no, Viriditas's believes currently marketed GM food is dangerous etc, and has been pushing this viewpoint. That is completely out of line with the sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That's strange, since I have never said that anywhere. What I have said, is that the protesters believe that, and I have explored virtually every aspect of their argument since editors have been disputing every source about the subject. I have analyzed their claims in the sources and I've traced them back to the published evidence and studies, showing where their beliefs come from and how they started. In any case, let's test your claim. You said I believe that currently marketed GM food is dangerous and I've been pushing this viewpoint. Could you provide a single diff to the article showing this? No, you cannot, because all I have done is best represent our reliable sources. On the other hand, the OP and others keep adding off-topic sources to this article that have nothing to do with the march. That's called OR. Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas's edits are very much in favor of his expressed POV (and the anti-scientific claim) that there is no scientific consensus on GM food and that they are unsafe. It's in basic violation of multiple policies and guidelines. He may be right on Firemylasers, he may be wrong, but Viriditas has a history of crusading against users he believes are socks beyond what the evidence suggests. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to refute you, Thargor. Here you go: [171][172][173][174][175] Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Viriditas has been aggressively pushing his points of view about this topic. He was even doing it on his userpage during his last block. I suggest uninvolved editors and admins have a look through some of his comments to see the sheer WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. He has been attempting to minimise the mainstream position as much as possible in that article as have a number of other editors who think they are saving wikipedia from the corporations or whatever, IRWolfie- (talk)

• On the contrary, you will not find a single diff or contribution showing that I have "minimized the mainstream position" at all. Here are my contributions for you to look at. Please provide the diff that shows me pushing a POV. The diffs will actually show that I have repeatedly promoted the mainstream position, and I am responsible for adding the vast majority of pro-GMO POV content to the article itself using sources about the march. The problem is that some editors don't understand writing for the enemy and have come to this article with a POV warrior chip on their shoulder intending to do battle with other editors and to add off-topic sources to push a singular POV that has nothing to do with the March Against Monsanto. Oh, and btw, here is a link to your contributions. What do we find? Well, your very first edit was to violate NPOV, by removing an Associated Press story that reflected the mainstream coverage of the event where "organizers said that two million people marched" around the world, and replacing it with content that misrepresented a single source noting that "an estimated 200,000 marched worldwide".[176] Should we look at more of your contributions, IRWolfie-? I suspect we will find more egregious violations. Another example of "he who smelt it, dealt it" at work. I mean, you got a lot of nerve complaining about me, IRWolfie-, when your very first edit is a NPOV violation. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The associated press story used the numbers reported by the organisers, The newspaper I included gives an actually decent estimate rather than swallowing whats reported wholesale by the organisers. That churnalists credously repeat the claim doesn't make it true, or reliably sourced. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I wake up to find notification of this in my E-Mail inbox? Well it's nice to know an issue I've been involved in is at ANI for it's third time etcetera. I only touched on the AFD because I was trying to better my AFD Record, didn't think I'd end up being part of an ANI Discussion! Anyway, as already established unless I read over the article all I could tell you about the subject is that it's a match that took place in Monsato. IP, yes, I have, but if you check its logs first of all it's a SHAREDIPEDU registered to my (at the time) school, one or two of its edits were me clearing up mess others have made on it generally. I dunno what else to say really, I'll cast my eyes over things if you need the extra head? MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 11:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with IRWolfie on this one. And using terms which are noted as "being used by critics" as though they were the proper Wikilinks violated NPOV even here. In this case, Viriditas is quite "at fault" and his rejection of science and NPOV here as an editor is not helping him. We use what the reliable sources state (yes - including the anti-GM sources, properly attributed - I would not dream of being unbalanced in any article), but extensive side excursions attacking other editors without providing clear evidence of violations of Wikipedia policies is a violation of Wikipedia policy in itself. Viriditas - you are beating a very dead horse at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• If we decide it is true, or simply probable, that Monsanto's PR team is manipulating Wikipedia articles, our problem is much bigger than perceived rudeness. Collect, I really appreciate you, but I'm surprised to see you describe Viriditas as "rejecting science". What do you mean by that? groupuscule (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, Collect, where have I rejected science anywhere? Where have I rejected NPOV? Where did I make these edits and to which article? I suggest that we won't be getting any actual diffs anytime soon. Oh, and Collect? What are you talking about? Can I get the little bouncy ball thingy, cause I'm just not following you. Viriditas (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ask IRWolfie that (He has been attempting to minimise the mainstream position as much as possible in that article as have a number of other editors who think they are saving wikipedia from the corporations or whatever) - it appears that you have a strong view which contradicts the mainstream view on certain products which have undergone rigorous scientific examination. Perhaps I ought to have said "dislikes the scientific consensus on GM foods"? Collect (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• What an unusual response! Am I talking to you or IRWolfie through you? (Could you ask him to pass the salt?) In any case, do these diffs support your claim that I have a strong view which contradicts the mainstream view?[177][178][179][180][181] Viriditas (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We are posting on a noticeboard -- no need for nice personalized commentary. [182] shows you removing "scientific consensus" and changing it to "many scientists" and then adding Some people are concerned, reports the Associated Press, about whether "genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment". Due to these concerns, some consumers, companies, and organizations have advocated for mandatory labeling laws. The Biotechnology Industry Organization supports voluntary labeling but opposes mandatory labeling laws because it believes it would "mislead or confuse consumers into thinking the products aren't safe. I suggest this is reducing a sourced claim about scientific consensus and adding material quite specifically implying that the foods may not actually be safe. And removing a slew of reliable sources at the same time. Perhaps you did not intend it that way? Could the "consensus" be wrong? Yeah. Does that mean we reject and remove the reliable sources making that claim? Nope. Do we seek NPOV with all sides correctly presented? Yep. But removing the claim entirely is not how to do it. Cheers. `Collect (talk)

Your interpretation of the diff is in error. The sources about the march in that section said nothing about any "scientific consensus" regarding "food on the market derived from GM crops" and the fact that their "risk poses no greater risk than conventional food". I removed that statement as it had nothing to do with the subject of the march and was sourced to references that had nothing to do with the topic which the WP:NOR policy explicitly prohibits. On the other hand, the Associated Press news article about the March reported "The use of GMOs has been a growing issue of contention in recent years, with health advocates pushing for mandatory labeling of genetically modified products even though the federal government and many scientists say the technology is safe", which is exactly what was added—directly from a reliable secondary source about the subject. We only use sources about the subject. Editors don't get to pick and choose which sources they like to see in the article about other subjects. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In an usual move, I fully agree with Collect, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Then you both support violating WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE. Per NOR, "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented...Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context...precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia." Per FRINGE: "...the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing." That's very clear and easy to understand. So then, one wonders why you both encourage others to violate it? Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• As per the opening statement, seeking clarification; I am an independent, volunteer WIkipedia editor - as per my user page I work at a university and I work on WIkipedia for fun and because I think it is a good thing to do - it serves the public good. I do not work for Monsanto or any PR firm. I have no sock puppets. With respect to the March Against Monsanto article - I actually stopped watching and working on it because I find it too unpleasant to edit with Viriditas - his/her discussion style on Talk is generally (not always) too uncivil for me (which I have found sadly ironic since at the top of his/her Talk page, one finds a quote: "In this world, hatred has never been defeated by hatred. Only love can overcome hatred. This is an ancient and eternal law".) I have wondered if Viriditas was going to get him/herself in trouble for going too far with negatively commenting on other editors. Sorry it came to this. Viriditas - please stop focusing on other editors and please don't bring your battlefield style even here (as per your comments above). Please take this thread - which is not about the MaM article, but is rather about your behavior on Talk - as a wake-up call to try harder to meet the high ideals of your quote in your daily editing work; in Wikipedia terms, to meet the high ideals of the 4th pillar. More particularly, if you had focused your comments on content, not contributors, this thread would not even exist. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I thought you left because you were tired of blanket reverting my edits.[183] You can imagine that kind of behavior doesn't exactly encourage a civil response. Viriditas (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarcasm. bummer. Please take this as an opportunity to hear the community. Please be more civil and focus your comments on content not contributors. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just an observation but if you feel strongly about the SPA shouldn't you open an SPI over at AIV? That would get the checkuser run and either confirm or deny anything you can draw conclusions to. Just saying because multiple editors can have very similar writing styles, thought they tend not to be identical. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've actually tried very hard to ignore the little guy. Viriditas (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Uninvolved tangential comment: I would be surprised if Monsanto is not working to influence our coverage of their business domain. I think Monsanto and GMO is an area where we should be very careful to use only high quality sources - the kind that is neither funded by the pro or anti lobby. Viriditas is right that all sources have a POV - but not all sources can be considered reliable sources of information about facts. We should prioritize academic treatments of this field because the scientific dialogue is the only dialogue that we can depend on to be influenced by facts and to be striving towards uncovering the actual risks and benefits of GMOs and the business models of Monsanto. Partisan sources should be given little priority.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't doubt that it's true on both sides. I think there's a lot of influence to get specific types of biased sources into the encyclopedia, and I think the March article has enough editors on both sides trying to keep good sourcing in. The issue is more the bad faith and the bad science (even if its from generally good sources). Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• The scientific consensus is that currently marketed GMOs are safe, yet Viriditas acknowledges he is pushing for claims of dubious safety (or that he would, at this point he was still blocked at the time) in the March Against Monsanto article at [184]. It is this insertion of fringe claims without the mainstream position that is at issue. Viriditas's commentary is that of the supporters ("Protesters are concerned that Monsanto's claim that their products are safe cannot be trusted because of many similar claims that turned out to be false", "Protesters want to end the conflict of interest which permits Monsanto to operate with impunity and promote their agenda within the halls of government and as members of supposedly independent scientific review boards. ", etc etc), and is not supported by the evidence (it's more like Seralini's position which was utterly discredited). As in all such monologues from Viriditas, it eventually comes down to a conspiracy about Monsanto. I suggest people read through some of his dialogues during his blocks (ironically one of his blocks was for making unsubstantiated allegations), it is most illuminating. Reading through his comments you see the aggressiveness and the same false allegations appearing in one way or the other. I asked Viriditas to stop calling people shills, he said he would, but he has continued. If I recall, Viriditas believes the statements by the March Against Monsanto people are in fact representative of the mainstream position about safety ("Questions and concerns about the safety of GMO food, crops, and associated herbicides are not fringe by any stretch of the imagination."), IRWolfie- (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • it seems that as far as the content aspect is concerned that you and some others have raised concerns about how the general issue of GMOs is addressed in this article about a protest movement whose existence is premised on raising public awareness about the potential dangers of GMOs. I would have to agree with Viriditas that much of that material is off topic and should be linked to the article on GMOs. This article is not directly about the science related to GMOs, but indirectly about the science related to GMOs through the related stances adopted by the March Against Monsanto that is the subject of the article; that is to say the topic upon which Wikipedia is supposed to be providing an informative article to the reading public.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That's a argument that can reasonably be made, and some people, such as yourself, have made this argument in a reasonable manner. I don't entirely agree with this, and think that there should be a brief mention of the mainstream view in the article, but this is something we can discuss like adults and come to a consensus or compromise on. However, it's never appropriate for any user on either side of the debate to personally attack, insult, and accuse of paid editing anyone everyone who disagrees with them. That's the concern here. a13ean (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The problem is that fringe theories must be addressed wherever they occur. This is not to say that the March page must be littered with fact checks on every line, but the opposition to including scientific evidence to combat fringe claims (most importantly regarding the scientific consensus on GMO safety) is the problem. We even have sources that link the consensus to the March, which was also removed by the same person who thinks ALEC is bankrolling me. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• While reading through this discussion I began to get a knot in my stomach, and I realized that it was reminding me of several discussions at meetings that I have had in the real world in which I tried to speak against planned actions being supported by skilled PR people and management experts. In each case I was unable to get my point across because such a person was so good at turning the discussion into an extremely polite attack on me that my point about the topic of the meeting was ignored rather than refuted. I have nothing to say about Monsanto myself, and have never interacted with Viriditas, but I ask you not to dismiss his/her concerns simply because he/she is not very diplomatic. Even if every allegation made here against him/her is true, this is not a reason to assume that the concerns he/she brought forward are unfounded and should not be looked into. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but you are missing the point. Uncivil behavior destroys Wikipedia. There are means within Wikipedia to deal with concerns about COI/sock - V's way of addressing concerns - by making harsh accusations in Talk - is the wrong way. The 4th pillar (a pillar, mind you!) exists so that even when editors disagree about content, Wikipedia remains a decent community to work within. And that is why there are specific means to address concerns about socks/COI - so they can looked at and dealt with carefully, intentionally, respectfully, and as per policy and guidelines. If this is not clear to you please revisit WP:CIVILITY and WP:No_Personal_Attacks. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes truth and honesty are favored over sticky-sweet speak. I've seen talk pages completely derailed whilst editors remained incredibly polite. We are adults with limited time trying to write an informative encyclopedia. petrarchan47tc 17:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Petrarachan. You are the other editor at Wikipedia that I have left pages on account of; your comments continually express a misunderstanding of WP:CIVILITY, as they do here. The 4th pillar has nothing to do with your opinion of other editors (positive or negative), nor with "sticky sweetness". Truth & honesty on the one hand, and civility on the other, are not mutually exclusive. Civility is a pillar of Wikipedia; it is not optional. I hope you come to understand civility and its importance one day. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I need no thanks. Your response is a case in point: though couched in politeness, your comments are ascerbic and condescending. I too have left the entire GMO issue alone, save for my efforts at MAM, because of my inability to deal with you (and the others who regularly work on GMO articles). And it's not because you aren't polite. I will say, you are the only editor on wiki to ever accuse me of being difficult to work with, that I can recall. I will also add that it was whilst trying to save this article from the trash bin that I was taken to the 3RR noticeboard (link sheds more light on the origins of this article and related editing problems) in an attempt to have me banned - the only time on wiki I have ever been taken to any noticeboard. The charges were trumped up, and the case failed. My behaviour is no different on this article than any other i work on, nor is it different towards you, jtydog, yet the reactions to my editing and behaviour when I work on anything GMO related, are wildly out of alignment. I also experienced my first complaints on my talk page whilst building this article - a slew of them from a whole team of editors. After over two years, all of the sudden people are outraged by my behaviour? I have to think the problem does not lie with me, but maybe a POV problem surrounding the GMO issue. petrarchan47tc 21:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction: I have now been taken to a noticeboard for my second time, again related to work on this article. There is a suggestion that I may need to take a break from working on it, although I haven't worked on the article in about a month, until yesterday. petrarchan47tc 00:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you got into trouble, Petrarchan. You wrote above that my comments are "couched in politeness, but are acerbic and condescending." One of the huge limitations in Wiki is that this is all written-word and it is hard to convey tone and very easy to read tone into things. I re-read what I wrote and found nothing explicitly acerbic or condescending, and I would be interested to see what you found to be explicitly so. I can imagine you reading what i wrote, and imagining it was written with acerbic intent - and applying such intent while reading can indeed make it or any text very ugly (even "I love you" can be said nastily). But I didn't write it acerbicly - that was not my intention. I actually wrote it sadly. (if you would, re-read with that tone in your mind) Civility is hard. "Couching in politeness" is certainly part of it and is not to be discounted. It is much more. I try to be civil always, and I fail sometimes. Anyway, I wanted to respond, but we are way way off track of the ANI. I would be happy to try to work through this with you, on your page or mine. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Civil is nice, but honesty is better by far. I've heard you state numerous times that you were saddened by editors' behaviour (I'm including our work together at BP). This has always struck me as problematic. This place should not make us emotional on that level, and if it is a repeated phenomenon, the best thing is to walk away from Wikipedia until a level of detachment arises. A less passionate editor is always better, in my observations. petrarchan47tc 23:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Civil is not "nice". It is the fifth pillar of wikipedia. You have not acknowledged that. It is no wonder you don't see why it makes me sad when people ignore it. Blowing off any of the pillars destroys the foundations of wikipedia. For this one, Wikipedia wants a vibrant community of editors with differing opinions, working together to create great content. This is a lovely ideal, but it is hard. Treating people in an uncivil manner - especially people with whom you disagree - frustrates the ideal. (it is easy to treat people with whom you agree in a civil manner, right? The pillar exists because people disagree, intensely, all the time.) Groupuscule, SlimVirgin, Arc de ciel - all three of these editors "get it". They are unfailing, beautifully, civil. Others, including me, struggle. Some ignore it altogether.Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What you were edit warring in there was "In the US the majority of the corn, soybean and cotton crops have been genetically modified, which anti-GMO advocates say can lead to "serious health conditions" and cause damage to the environment." This statement you were edit warring is a fringe claim which is against the scientific consensus. Just because you quote someone else as saying it doesn't mean it's suddenly acceptable. You can't insinuate something is dangerous in an article when the most reliable scientific sources disagree, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is the history of these "edit wars" where I quoted from a Guardian article, saying that the protesters believed GMOs were dangerous to their health.. (I've copied my recent remarks from the MAM talk page.):

I see a heck of a lot of policing, but little to no content creation related to the March Against Monsanto. What I have seen is a lot of trying to keep the article from being written, or stories spun about how all problems lie with two editors and their bickering. I do hope Admins come around, and thoroughly look through the archives. They will see exactly what type of content has been aggressively added and what has been removed, all with a very specific pro-Monsanto and pro-GMO POV, and wildly outside the bounds of this article's subject matter. It began for me here, and more pro-biotech was added here. I had to continually remove the Monsanto propaganda ( and again), but I was told over and over, by a variety of editors in numerous ways, "You can't put in the protest claims without pointing out that they are not supported scientifically" and we cannot allow fringe POVs to go unchecked in this article, and it was re-added again and again because "We cannot allow fringe viewpoints to go unchecked". One time, IRWolfie swept through and erased most of my work. We weren't allowed to say "Anti-GMO advocates point to studies they believe prove GMOs can lead to serious health consequences" because, according to A13ean, the source material from Truthout mentioned Séralini, who found that GM corn created large tumors in rats, and who according to this group of editors, was discredited. And here's when another SPI rolled through to "eliminate soapboxing". Then there was the time IRWolfie declared the entire article Fringe Theory. And of course, the various efforts to change the number of protesters from 2 million to "between 200,000 to 2 million" based on one local NY newspaper article written while the protest was still ongoing, which Jtydog started here... and which ended up ensconced in Wikipedia at the Monsanto article and the Genetically modified food article, as well as this one... meaning these editors support the use of this one reference to change the truth that was reported by literally every other media, and to this day, which is that the protest was attended by 2 million protesters (no "range" is ever mentioned, only on Wiki). "2 million" is the uncontested turnout number as for as RS is concerned, but we are not allowed to state that on Wikipedia. petrarchan47tc 10:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

An article is required to not advance a fringe theory, per WP:FRINGE. Pointing at studies and saying they "found that GM corn created large tumors in rats", when the same study have been completely discredited is part of the problem here. You are creating the idea that their views are well supported when they are not. You made a large amount of changes to an article in a short period, and I reverted it highlighting issues. You should be then discussing the issue per WP:BRD, but instead one of your friends re-inserted the material. That you think a statement from the worlds largest scientific organisation etc is Monsanto propaganda is quite frankly ridiculous, and that you were edit warring to remove this is in violation of discretionary sanctions in this area. Uninvolved editors and admins should reflect on how much of a conspiracy theory that is; we have people here claiming that position statements from the AAAS are Monsanto Propaganda. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Nobody, I repeat, nobody has created the idea that their views are well supported. What we have done is use reliable sources about the subject to best represent the topic. The statements from the AAS and other articles you keep adding have nothing to do with the subject of this article and actually violate our policy on original research and our very guideline on fringe theories. We can only use reliable sources directly related to the topic of the article that directly support the material under discussion. You can't use them out of context, and you can't synthesize prose in order to debunk ideas that the scientific community considers fringe. I suggest you actually read WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly propaganda in this context. I'm unsure who my friends are, are what they tried to add, but I will speak for myself if you don't mind. I never tried to add or mention Seralni or any science whatsoever. The quotation i sought to add was rejected simply because Seralini was mentioned in the referenced article. petrarchan47tc 18:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"You made a large amount of changes to the article in a short period of time", aka, as Robert states below, "At the time, the article was badly structured and badly formatted, and I nominated it for deletion. Four days later, it was much improved, and I recommended an early close as a Keep". I did that work. And you were the one who requested it. In the deletion discussion your complaint was that the article needed to be expanded. I took my cue directly from your comment. No one helped me at the time, many complained about the article at the deletion discussion, but didn't make efforts to improve it (which is somewhat the case to this day). I was alone because Viriditas was blocked for 3RR during his early attempts to improve the page. petrarchan47tc 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Much heat, but little light

Well, at least my post here got some responses! Unfortunately, it seems to be a dialog between users on one "side", who talk in principle about how bad PR manipulation of our content potentially could be, and those on the other "side", who deny that they are doing anything other than editing for what they believe to be NPOV.

It seems to me that, for an administrators' noticeboard, I'm seeing awfully little input from administrators here.

Allow me to make a modest proposal:

1. If you believe that another editor is violating WP:SOCK, please report it at WP:SPI.
2. If you believe that another editor is violating WP:COI, please report it at WP:COIN.
3. If you believe that we do not have an adequate policy for dealing with edits by PR accounts, please start a discussion about how to improve our procedures.
4. But if you are not willing to do any of those three things, then please stop making accusations.
5. Anyone who is unwilling to do any of the above, and continues to make accusations, should get attention from administrators, because throwing around accusations without being willing to back them up is just using WP:NPA violations to try to get the upper hand in a POV dispute.
6. I would like to see some administrators make sure that the above is actually being adhered to.

Thanks, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That is good advice also for non-administrators, and I agree with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. a13ean (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thirded, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Also agree - this would improve things immensely. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all of you. OK, here is what is going to come next. I'm going to put a very conspicuous link to this part of the discussion here, on the article talk page. Then I'm going to watch the article talk page very carefully for any editor who goes against number 4 in the above list. If I see that happen from now going forward, I'm going to open a thread here on ANI about the editor(s) in question, specifically and by name. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Link: Talk:March Against Monsanto#Notice about accusations. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment About AFD and other matters

As was mentioned, I originally nominated the article for deletion. That happened after an unregistered editor (IP address) came to the Help Desk and complained that he or she had spent several hours formatting a table listing the cities in which the protests took place, only to have it deleted from the article without discussion. The unregistered editor whined that the deleting editor must have owned stock in Monsanto. That was the first accusation of conflict of interest in editing this article. Unfortunately, not much has changed in a few months. At the time, the article was badly structured and badly formatted, and I nominated it for deletion. Four days later, it was much improved, and I recommended an early close as a Keep. (When I said that my nomination had been justified, I meant that the article when I nominated it was not worth keeping, but that it was worth keeping after the work done on it.) The article has been contentious since then, with continued failure to assume good faith. As Tryptofish says, if you have evidence of bad faith or bad behavior, report it, but only if you have evidence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

All this based on an IP accusing an Admin of having a COI? Did that request actually have any 'proof' ground to stand on? Call it a lack of 'WP:IPs are human too' if you must but I really think that the cause of his may actually have held no reason to escalate. (And no I haven't read the whole discussion.) MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 12:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

All this is not based on the originator of the article. Robert is saying his deletion nomination was based on that one incident. Attempts are being made to tie the present situation to the problems with the IP, but unfortunately the archives may need to be reviewed for the true story. petrarchan47tc 19:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from relatively uninvolved Jusdafax

I have never edited the MAM article I believe, but I look in now and again and have ventured a Talk page comment or two, to the general effect that Viriditas raises some questions about the article that should be considered carefully by the community. Viriditas has made a lot of sense to me over the years on other topics. While I have worked with Tryptofish in the past, like him, and am puzzled by the seeming conflict he has with Viriditas, I am even more unclear as to the motivations of some of the other parties who seem so furiously determined to edit this article from its early stages. In my view, this ongoing conflict is a time-sink for a cautious editor or admin, and ANI is unlikely to solve what is basically a content dispute. The next step is either a well-advertised Rfc which will be interesting to word, or dispute resolution. Since the parties at odds appear intractable, that DR attempt probably means a subsequent trip to ArbCom, the final Wikipedia court of appeal. Perhaps that should be contemplated now, rather than waste months of time and then go there. Jusdafax 13:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am further than this than Jusdafax. I came across it offwiki because of a phone call. They knew I edited Wikipedia and wondered why Monsanto seemed to be controlling our content. At a quick look a main issue seems to be the undue tagged media section. I assume it is there because of the claim that the media was told by Monsanto to play down the issue and we sourced it. I think this is very due in the article. If we don't include it without the tag then we could be just as guilty as the media. I agree that this should go to ArbCom quickly and be dealt with as it is a recent event. Btw, I live in Canada and don't care if they GMO my food or label it as such. I just want it to be cheap, nutritious, and taste ok. Soylent Green would be fine with me.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"I came across it offwiki because of a phone call. They knew I edited Wikipedia and wondered why Monsanto seemed to be controlling our content." ... "I am even more unclear as to the motivations of some of the other parties who seem so furiously determined to edit this article from its early stages" ... This illuminates the situation excellently. People have forgotten to WP:AGF in this area, and jumped to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with them must be doing so at the behest of a big evil corporation. Please, let's take this to ArbCom. Any sort of rational discourse falls by the wayside when people can't even imagine for a second that those on the other side of the conflict are just doing their best to keep a neutral article, and accurately represent scientific consensus. a13ean (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a wildly inappropriate action. Hopefully administrators step in on this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Jusdafax, please let me suggest doing the "thought experiment" of temporarily "forgetting" that you know either Viriditas or me. Pretend that we are both editors whom you have never come across before, and look at what we each have said on the article talk page, and evaluate what you see in that fashion. Myself, I became aware of the page in a rather odd way: I saw on my watchlist that an RfC that I hadn't noticed previously has been removed after a month from the RfC page by the bot, and I thought that the page about the March sounded interesting, and I started watching it then. What I have seen, just looking at it with whatever eyes I brought to it, was rather different than what Canoe1967 describes here. I saw a couple of editors who varied in how articulate and clueful they are, who appeared to be arguing in good faith for what seemed to me to be reasonable NPOV, and Viriditas and maybe a few others responding to them with spectacular suspicion and confrontation. I then tried to offer what I though were some middle-ground suggestions. The allegedly pro-Monsanto editors responded in ways that weren't always clueful, but which mostly seemed to me to be good faith and with willingness to compromise. Viriditas has consistently responded to me by insulting me and refusing to credit any good faith, or even basic intelligence, to anything I have said. It's really quite shocking, some of the nastiest stuff directed at me during my entire Wiki-career, and I've had a lot of experiences with some real characters. At the same time, I think that the possibility of POV-pushing by persons who are secretly working for someone, in this case Monsanto, is something that is intolerable, so I'm trying to keep an open mind.

Like some others above, I expect that this issue will eventually find its way to ArbCom, and I'm seriously considering making myself the filing editor. But doing that at this step would be premature. That's just the way things are. I want the administrative issues that I've raised here to be given a chance. If they fail, there should probably be an RfC/U. And if that reaches no conclusion, then, ArbCom here we come. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem of the POV. The article is about the protest. It should be the POV of the protest. I think others are trying to shove too much of the Monsanto POV into it. That balance should be in the Monsanto article. We don't include Judaism in Christian articles just to balance the POV. If the protestors call Monsanto a 'big evil corporation' that goes in the protest article and in the Monsanto article they can claim the protest is 'a brain dead fringe group full of quacks' if they wish and if they can source it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Then you should make that argument at the article talk page, not here (and be prepared to explain how that would not be WP:POVFORK). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I could care less about the article. What I do care about is the possible outside POV pressure on it which is why ArbCom should be consulted. It is an article on a protest. It should stress the POV of the protest. The Monsanto article would stress their POV of the protest. We have Abortion debate with NPOV but we also have Anti-abortion movements and Abortion-rights movements which each have their POVs stressed. Any NPOV in the protest article should be balanced in Genetically modified food controversies but the protest article itself should stress the POV of the protest.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the issue at the article. No one is opposed to the article being about the protest, that's sensible. The conflict comes from the anti-science, fringe points of view being stated without question against policy, the coatracking of other GM debates within the article based on thin association to the march, and a more minor sub-conflict about the media issue. That's it. To frame this as anyone trying to make the article into something other than that is simply wrong. You may have been told that when you were canvassed over the phone to rescue the article, but if you came to the talk page of the article, you might know these things. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There are no "anti-science, fringe points of view being stated without question against policy" and there is no "coatracking", and there never has been. You've been making these ridiculous claims over and over and over again in an attempt to hold the article WP:HOSTAGE to your POV by removing anything that criticizes Monsanto or presents the views of the protesters as stated directly in reliable sources. More recently, Alexbrn noticed that the article didn't actually contain any of these fringe POV, so he took it upon himself to add it to the article to prove your point![185] So your newest tactic is not to concede you were wrong, but to actively turn this article into exactly what you are criticizing it for doing! I'm sorry, but that's very dishonest. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edit history speaks for itself at this point. That you still haven't chosen to retract your attacks on your fellow editors should say a lot. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If the article is about a protest based on wing-nut anti-science then the article should mention their claims about wing-nut anti-science. We don't censor articles on other fringe theories and exclude their theories so we shouldn't with this one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, but it was properly summarized per policy as "concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods (GMOs) on human health", but now its been turned into "the belief that GM foods can adversely affect human health, causing "cancer, infertility and birth defects", which takes the concerns about food safty and turns into into an unscientific "belief" that GMOs can "cause" these things. The problem is, the sources never said that. What's going on here is that Thargor, Alexbrn, and others are purposefully trying to turn this article into the very things they are criticizing in order to substantiate their initial criticism, a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The point is that the claims about cancer, etc. are what the movement itself claims AND what it is reported as claiming in a reliable source, therefore is perfectly proper for Wikipedia to contain this material. We must not editorially sanitize the view of the protestors as this has the non-neutral effect of making their views appear less fringe than they verifiably are. This is Wikpedia 101. Your counter-arguments that draw on implications this is part of a plan by editors who are working in league, as well as being insulting, is just a tremendous waste of time for everyone involved, as this whole noticeboard discussion sadly shows. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I am going to write this article off as another one that forces offwiki editor views onto yet another failed article. You should all take your personal POVs and go create blogs with them somewhere. Wikipedia is not the place for this crap. If I had my way I would topic ban the whole lot of you.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the rotten apple/throw the baby out with the bathwater approach. I would settle for editors simply adhering to the most basic policies and guidelines and using sources about the subject. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If anyone was trying to censor the anti-science viewpoints from the article, I'd stand with you in opposition. The only desire is to ensure that the worst of the claims get the proper scientific context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE: "...the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing." Got it yet, Thargor? Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this article is about a mainstream idea though. It involves a protest based on fringe theories as well as democratic change. Read a protest sign and then try to tell us they are not stating fringe theories.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been arguing that they've been stating fringe theories from the start. That's what got me labeled an "ALEC-funded" shill and got you involved in the first place. The mainstream idea, in this case, is protesting big corporate entities. The fringe theories not broadly supported by scholarship are their claims. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I am cofused by what you mean. Is the protest partially supported by fringe theories not backed by mainstream science? If so, then all of those fringe theories should be mentioned in a protest article about the fringe theories they are based on. We could also create GMO fringe theories since it seems they are notable and widely covered.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That would simply be a POV fork of the controversies article, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about the controversy though. It is about the protest and the protest was not controversial. If the protest is based on fringe theories that are controversial then that controversy should not coatrack this article about a protest. We could move this article to a section of GMO fringe theories and thus include both sides in more detail. It just seems to me that editors want to slam the protest article as much as they can with other science material that this protest wasn't based on.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue you're missing is that our guidelines insist that fringe theories be combated where they appear. If we present the fringe theories of the protesters without noting the consensus viewpoint, the article is out of balance and not in line with Wikipedia policies. No one is asking for point/counterpoint on each issue, simply on the issue of GM safety that we have a clear scientific consensus. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you either didn't read Wikipedia:Fringe theories or are selecting material from it and paraphrasing it. I don't know why I continue to discuss an article that is doomed to be a mess. Editors are trying to coatrack it with both sides of the controversy which belongs in other articles. I still think you should all be topic banned for trying to force your personal POVs into Wikipedia articles. Go edit Pokémon for a while.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment from alleged paid editor or sockpuppet SpectraValor

My work-derived income comes 100% from public funding of my research, and I have never studied genetically modified corn or any of the other products the March protests. I have never received money from Monsanto or any other GMO producer. I was never asked to edit this article. Several of my colleagues and employees and family members edit Wikipedia, and it is likely that I have at some point edited some of the same articles as them but I have never to my knowledge coordinated edits with anyone. I have never been paid to make an edit. I have never made an edit as the result of an off-Wiki request. These accusations made against me are disturbing and false. With the proper guarantees of confidentiality, I would be willing to share my standard financial disclosure form with Wales or another Wikipedia official. The question of paid editors is important, but I am not one. I came to the article because I had recently developed an intellectual interest in the science and social implications of GMOs, nothing more.

I will not edit this article again, and I regret my poor judgment in staying involved for several weeks. To those with the time and energy to stick with it, please remember that just as important as ensuring paid editors follow Wikipedia policy is ensuring anti-corporation editors and anti-paid-editor activists also follow Wikipedia policy. SpectraValor (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason for you to stop editing the page if you want to continue editing it. (And there is no reason for you to keep editing it if it is giving you aggravation.) I have observed that these accusations have been made against you at the article talk page, and I have observed that you denied the accusations there. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In the discussion above, this comment: [186] seems to be a lot of the reason for the accusation, and it's worth evaluating for whether it's really evidence, or just seeing a coincidence when none exists. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am a graduate student in physics and recently a part time scientific consultant (I have never edited any page related to my only paying customer or their industry). I have never received money from Monsanto, or any agriculture related business or NGO -- the same goes for every member of my family and my in-laws. I have never edited wikipedia under any other account, and you can see from my edit history I have no more interest in GMO safety than I have in several other subjects. I will gladly prove my real life identity to any administrator with whom I have worked productively in the past, including those who I disagree with on various subjects. I'll even send you a picture of me in my (100% organic) garden, if it get's people to stop the knee-jerk assumptions that everyone who disagrees with them is a "corporate shill". The behavior on this subject has gotten way out of hand. a13ean (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• I walked away from the article some time ago. I'm not paid to edit; I'm not a shill; but I'm tired of being treated as one. bobrayner (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Some time ago, in the interests of transparency, I took the trouble to make pretty much everything about me discoverable from my User Page (TL;DR - no Monsanto connection whatsover). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Question for Viriditas

Viriditas: above, someone asked you why you did not pursue an SPI or other specific complaint procedure: [187]. At that time, this was your reply: [188] (lower part of the diff).

Setting aside how you would know how large or small the other user is, I can fully appreciate the value of not escalating things. However, given that you have chosen to continue to assert that there may be SOCK or COI violations going on, and given how important it is to control any paid POV pushing on-Wiki, why would you not ask for such an investigation, and would you be willing to request such investigations now? Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Focus and wrap-up please?

As (too often) happens in Wikipedia, this conversation has gotten completely derailed. Can everybody please get back on topic, rather than heatedly discussing things that belong on the Talk page of the relevant article? The point of this ANI is Viriditas' behavior, namely, "some editors have accused other editors of being paid advocates for Monsanto and pushing a pro-Monsanto POV, as well as some implied accusations of WP:SOCK violations." I think that the discussion has laid the accusations to rest and has also made it clear that the manner in which they were repeatedly made was inappropriate. Several participants (including me) have said that we stopped working on the article because it is too hostile there. So what about V's behavior? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You've left out a few observations from the discussion, namely, that regardless of Viriditas' possible lack of diplomacy, some issues he raised are seen as worthy of further consideration. It was suggested that the possibly of an effort by Monsanto to influence March Against Monsanto and other related pages here is not outside the realm of possibilities. Also, one editor mentioned that this is essentially a content dispute which may need to wind up at ArbCom, and a few called for this to happen sooner rather than later. Why not allow this thing to play out, as I doubt that Admins have had sufficient time to fully look into the records? Sunshine is always the best disinfectant. Covering up an open sore often ends with infection. petrarchan47tc 23:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Petrarchan47 (which may come as a surprise to them!). I'm in favor of focus, but it's premature to wrap-up. But what I would say is that it is long past time to stop discussing content here (as opposed to at the page) and long past time to stop discussing theoretical concepts of what might or might not be going on, on Wikipedia. The issue here is user conduct. The conduct of the accusers, and (simply by logical extension) the conduct of the accused. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops, you forgot to mention the issue is also whether we need pro-GMO science at the protest article, how policy regarding fringe affects our article, and whether there is some weird teamwork taking place at this and GMO articles on wiki that happens to coincide with Monsanto's interests. petrarchan47tc 23:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm back to not agreeing. But that comment certainly is an interesting example of conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan if you want to open a separate ANI on the issues you state, please do so, but please do not take the focus away from the issue raised by the OP.Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And Tryptofish I don't agree - even if it turns out that V was correct that there are socks and COI going on, the way he/she has handled those concerns has been inappropriate. Additionally no serious evidence or even arguments have been made here that there is anything to those concerns. And this is not the forum for addressing those concerns, in any case.Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, it may actually be that I agree with you more than might be apparent. My desire here, as I said, is to focus on editor conduct, because, after all, this is ANI, not the article talkpage or some kind of chatroom. At this point, we are accumulating a long list of editors who are, in apparent good faith, disavowing any connection to Monsanto (reminding me a bit of "I am not now, and never have been, a member of..."). I'm keeping an open mind, but I'm not yet seeing any clear evidence of shill-like editing. POV disagreements, yes, but not organized. On the other side, I'm seeing what you seem to see, which are a lot of serious accusations. I just took a look at Viriditas' user contributions, and he seems to have made about 45 edits since I left a notification on his talk page about my question to him above. I will continue to keep an open mind until my question above gets answered, but I believe that an answer is needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, your demand that I answer your "questions" sounds exactly like the HUAC hearing inquisitors who demanded that people answer their questions to prove that they weren't communists. I can only assume from your misstep that you are not American and are therefore not familiar with its history. In any case, I have not edited the article in question since you started this thread. Imagine my surprise to find you and the rest of the cast of characters carrying on even more than before, edit warring and continuing to wage ideological battles. You came here to discuss editorial conduct? That's funny, you haven't addressed it at all. I may be your whipping boy, but in my absence, the same dispute is continuing stronger than ever, indicating that your so-called conduct issues have nothing to do with me. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

V, if you look at what people are saying here, your uncivil behavior has driven several editors off the page. I have asked you in Talk to tone it down, more than once. You are not getting it and now it has come to this - an ANI. Please, please try to be more civil. I know you care about the article a lot, but you need to recognize that others do too, and treat other editors with more civility....Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, a couple of things (as obvious as they may be to uninvolved observers). Actually, I am in the US, and quite familiar with US history, not that it really matters in this instance. By the scare quotes that you put around "questions", it seems that you think that my questions were in some way out of line; I will leave that, again, to uninvolved observers to assess. I didn't demand that you answer, but I requested it. You have now made it clear that you do not intend to answer. That is your right, but anyone else following this discussion has the right to draw their own conclusions about it. As soon as I wrote those questions here, I left a notification on your talk page, and anyone can see it, so you need not be surprised by the existence of the questions. As for your surprise about what has gone on at the article during this time, you are factually incorrect in saying that I have been edit warring or carrying on ideological battles. If you believe otherwise, you are free to raise those concerns at the appropriate noticeboards, although it appears from your non-answer that you are disinclined to do so. As for anyone else's behavior there, the conduct issues that I raised here at ANI are principally two things: (1) paid POV-pushing, and (2) accusations of paid POV-pushing made without sufficient evidence. As far as I can tell, during the time after this ANI thread began, there is precious little evidence of (1), and the accusations, (2), appear to have stopped. It's true that there is a POV dispute with or without you, but that is not the same thing. And I have better things to do than to make you or anyone else my "whipping boy".

OK, now I am satisfied that it is indeed time to wrap-up this ANI thread. We know what Viriditas thinks. I don't think that there is anything more to discuss here, although I invite uninvolved administrators to keep an eye on the page and its talk page. I also invite any editors who would like to discuss the next steps in resolving this dispute to contact me on my talk page. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

So three ANI reports has stemmed down to one user being told they need to be more civil? Either or this looks done/good to close to me. Hopefully this won't come up again. But hey what's life's regular course of action with drama causing incidents? My point exactly. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 00:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Addendum. It was more than just that. I have been banned from editing March Against Monsanto for a week. I had never heard of the GMO controversy until the phone call I received. Since then I created Taco Bell GMO recall which I tried to include in Genetically modified food controversies at first. My addition was notable and sourced but one reason for the reversion was 'article too big already'. I then created it as a stand alone. Since then it was re-directed to yet a fourth article, Taco Bell, which I reverted. I expect the next step will be an Afd attempt. I still don't care about the GMO POVs that some editors claim exist but I do care about how it effects Wikipedia. Put these articles on your watchlists to see if any further antics arise.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:AfricaTanz refusing to engage in talk page discussions while engaging in edit warring

User:AfricaTanz is refusing to engage in any talk page discussions at LGBT rights in Jamaica while engaging in systematic edit warring including reverting of edits. When I talk to him on his user page I get abuse. This is not the first time he has been reported for this behaviour. Can an admin please take a look. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You should still have notified AfricaTanz of this discussion. I've now left them a notice. On the other hand, you too are actively edit warring at this article. As to the use of quotations [189], there is no problem with using larger chunks of quoted text, but "the copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information (WP:QUOTE)." The current article though relies heavily on verbatim quoted text, and this should in fact be remedied. De728631 (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried to notify AfricaTanz as soon as I had filed this report but was unable to due to a power cut (we dont all of us live in developed countries) and by the time I was able to get online again the next day he had already been informed by somebody else, ie you, De728631, and given his previous reverting of my comments on his talk page I decided there was thus no need for me to also tell him. The problem is AfricaTanz engages in edit wars while refusing to engage in discussion. Do we want to encourage this kind of behaviour in editors? Note that as usual he doesnt contribute here either but is still reverting multiple editors on the said article. Its impossible to remedy the quotes issue as AfricaTanz will simply revert without discussing, and its his refusal to discuss and his verbal abuse when I tried to on his talk page which are the reasons I have made a report here. I also fear that an editor who engages in religious hatred by calling Rastas bigots is not in a position to write neutrally about a real life conflict between Rastas and LGBT people. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

All I know is that I tried to delink a few entries and was instantly reverted by AfricaTanz, ok, that happens. I have now taken it to the talk page, but I am about 5 sections down in the discussion behind user SqueakBox's request to discuss his issues. I know my edits are very small potatoes, but lets see what happens. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Time to block this user to prevent further disruption. I delinked, per WP:overlink, an article that was linked 5 times in a row. I guess we will see if that gets reverted. If so, please help. --Malerooster (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, the article seems to be stable, but I've added a cleanup tag because of the overuse of quotations inside the article text. I recommend either paraphrasing some of the quoted law and press articles, or moving them to a footnotes section. De728631 (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm also faced with problems with User:AfricaTanz in the article List of country subdivisions by GDP over 100 billion US dollars. I added official figures for England and several French regions, with sources, but the guy reverted everything claiming he could not find data! You can see it here: [190]. I see he has also reverted other editors who had added data for Mexican and Brazilian regions. Can an admin have a discussion with AfricaTanz? Der Statistiker (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've left them a message about it. As to the French source, I can actually see though where AfricaTanz was coming from because you can easily miss the fact that this document consists of several Excel sheets, and the first one does not contain any such data. Anyhow, I hope that this was just a misunderstanding on their side. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Footwiks

• Footwiks (talk · contribs)
• List of FC Seoul players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What started off as a minor content dispute has not become a more serious conduct dispute. Quick background - there was a recent AFD of this article, initiated by myself. The result was 'keep', though there were a number of comments that the article was in need of a clean up. I attempted to do so by removing unreferenced/unencyclopedic content and basically trying to bring it into line with many other similar articles, some of which have been featured lists. However, I was immediately reverted by Footwiks, the article creator, who has severe ownership issues. In total he has reverted PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs) and myself seven times in 3 weeks. He has not really engaged on the article talk page, and when he has he has simply accused me of being a "vandal" - and his English-language skills are poor which is making. I attempted to raise the matter at DRN, but was advised it was more conduct than content (though the two here are related), and so I am bringing it here as this kind of behaviour cannot continue. GiantSnowman 12:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As an interested party, I probably don't need to comment here, but I have to agree with GiantSnowman. I've been aware of Footwiks' contributions for quite some time, and the guy just doesn't seem to understand that he has to abide by Wikipedia protocols. The ownership issue is the most pressing at the moment, but I really resent being called a vandal by someone who simply doesn't like what we're doing to "his" articles. – PeeJay 12:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I remember this AfD, even though I didn't participate. Footwiks' weak English was evident in the AfD, and, being blunt, they don't appear to give a shit about consensus or Wikipedia guidelines. Labelling constructive edits as "vandalism" is always a bad sign. "Here is wikipedia. Why are aritcles regarding club's list of players same format? Who set a standard? Don't suppress the freedom of editing. Is Snowman owner of Wikipedia?" is an example of a poor grasp of English, a poor attitude, and someone who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works (and, arguably, doesn't care) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Projecting obscenity onto another editor is not a matter of being blunt, it shows an inability or unwillingness to use English to express your viewpoint.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Inability or unwillingness to use English" - uh, last time I checked, the word "shit" was English. If I'd said "merde", then that comment would be valid; as it stands, if you're going to take a swipe at someone for using terminology you dislike, at least bother to use the correct terminology yourself! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• As a semi involved party (I closed the DRN as unsuitable) I support GiantSnowman's assessment of the situation and Lukes assessment of the situation. While some of the issues can come across from a language barrier I think it's mostly due to the poor attitude and understanding of the policies of the editor in question. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, if you have to ask "why are the articles in the same format", that's not a language barrier... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• I concur with GiantSnowman and Lukeno94. I looked at the AfD, the talk page, the page history, and DRN. It's absolutely clear that Footwiks has ownership issues. The accusations of "vandalism" are completely ridiculous, as well. I'd potentially support a topic ban from List of FC Seoul players and other list articles until Footwiks can demonstrate thorough understanding of the article ownership policy and realizes that there must be specific inclusion criteria for a list. CtP (t • c) 15:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• If there's talk of a topic ban, then I'd suggest from all articles related to FC Seoul, broadly construed. GiantSnowman 16:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. The user appears to deem themselves the sole arbiter of FC Seoul content here, so I'd say they should be banned from contributing to any article related to that topic. – PeeJay 16:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just a procedural note: The DRN did not "fail" but was simply closed for lack of extensive discussion with a recommendation that it be filed here by the closing DR/N volunteer.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 19:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Apologies; clarified. GiantSnowman 20:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• As the Korean Wikipedia's admin, I can say that he's using English Wikipedia to reference notability for an article in Korean Wikipedia such as Dongdaemun derby, Gyeongin derby and FC Seoul Reserves and Academy. Most of his contributes were reviewed at AfD in Korean Wikipedia. His problem in Korean Wikipedia was mostly about WP:OR. --kwan-in (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Per GiantSnowman and PeeJay, I propose that Footwiks (talk · contribs) is topic banned from any and all articles related to South Korean football club FC Seoul, broadly construed. The topic ban may be lifted when it's clear that Footwiks understands and is willing to abide by Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. CtP (t • c) 17:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban I'm sorry, but just block him or ban him out right. We are way to liberal with all these specific topic bans, and it's already nearly impossible to keep track of who can and can't edit about whatever subject. It's not like this guy is being constructive elsewhere on the project, and just can't get over his POV about this one topic. He either "gets it" or he doesn't at this point. Ditch ∝ 17:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• These are valid points. CtP (t • c) 17:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Just because you can't keep track doesn't mean the editors involved can't. Not an argument at all really.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can see where he's coming from when he says that it's pointless to topic ban him from one thing if he's not going to be constructive anywhere else. CtP (t • c) 18:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd support a lengthy block if that's the only other alternative. He does seem to contribute fairly regularly, so a shorter block might work, but if we want him to properly get the message, it needs to be at least a couple of weeks, maybe even a month. A ban seems a little harsh since he's not been particularly abusive, he's just been bandying "vandal" around (which I have to admit gets used far too often around here). – PeeJay 18:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - he seems to do decent work on football and South Korean articles in general, and banning him outright is a massive over-reaction, so a topic ban from all articles related to FC Seoul, broadly construed (that means editing articles about current players, past players, results, matches, seasons etc. etc.) seems like a good solution. GiantSnowman 18:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - At the end of the day, this is the first step. If the user becomes disruptive elsewhere, we can block them; this is currently the only area of disruption, so let's remove them from it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Excuse

I'm korean. Please understand my poor English, English is not my mother tongue. But Please listen to my opinion. Firstly, There was a List of foreign FC Seoul players and List of foreign FC Seoul players. But List of foreign FC Seoul players article is deleted after discussion and merged List of FC Seoul players many years ago and exist for many years.

A few weeks ago, User:GiantSnowman raise a deletion on List of FC Seoul players and after discussion, Article can exist under Consensus. But, Later on, User:GiantSnowman point out format of article, The format that User:GiantSnowman want is covered same content with Former notable players paragraph of FC Seoul. Why are same contents on Wikipedia? List of FC Seoul players and Former notable players paragraph of FC Seoul. When the List of foreign FC Seoul players deleted, consens was merging and after recnet discussion result was No deletion. So I understood that this article format don't have problem.

And article ownership problem is just misunderstanding. I just expressed my editing version. What I mean is not that List of FC Seoul players of my own article.

Try to put yourself in my place. If you discuss in Korean. Can you express your opion perfertly?

If the User:GiantSnowman's editing version is only allowed on Wikepdiea, Please delete this article. Same player lists are also exist on article FC Seoul

Two articles about same content are waste

Finaly, Due to my poor English, I can't express my opinion and don't understand what you mean perfectly. So There was misunderstanding on discussion.

I fairly contributed on football and South Korean and expecially related articles FC Seoul sinse 2009. I didn't cause any problem 5 years. I can't accept topic ban because they are just discussion misunderstanding and language misunderstanding me and GiantSnowmanFootwiks (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If you thought that there was no problem with the article just because it survived an AfD, you clearly either didn't read the comments from User:GiantSnowman or User:Hack. Wikipedia lists must have inclusion criteria: if the criterion for inclusion at List of FC Seoul players was "this player must have played for FC Seoul", then you have to list everyone. Since you didn't list all former FC Seoul players, you obviously had more specific inclusion criteria in mind that you probably should have noted down on the page. Listing the club's foreign players or those who have competed in major tournaments (for completely different teams, I might add) are not suitable inclusion criteria when it comes to indicating why these players are notable in connection with FC Seoul. There are numerous lists of players for different clubs that have reached Featured List status, and I see no reason why this one should be any different. The fact that I am saying this indicates that it is not just GiantSnowman who believes changes should be made to the article – it is far from "his" version, it is one that is supported by community consensus. The fact that you are unwilling/unable to accept this suggests to me that you are incapable of working in a community environment such as Wikipedia. – PeeJay 22:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Many years ago, Wikipedia granted the freedom of editing flexibly. As I said before, Past consensus of players list is that We can list any topic about club players. Especially, foreign players and players who have competed in major tournaments are informative list and information that many people want to find.

(List of players who have competed in major tournaments explained that players are only belong to FC Seoul participate Major tournamtne, e,g World Cup, Olympic football)

So Many football club pages had these list in briefly.

For example, World Cup players paragraph of F.C. Tokyo and Many football clubs had independent article about list of foreign players in the past.

Like List of FC Seoul players, Many years ago, List of foreign Persepolis F.C. players is also deleted and merged List of foreign Persepolis F.C. players. In this manner, Many fooball club foreign players list merged to Lis of XXX Club players.

But Wikipedia changed and suppressed freedom of editing. So many informative contentS and articles are deleted now. Many years ago, I can serch and find the foreign players by football clubs. But now We can't find these informations due to controller like GiantSnowman

I have feeling of doubt about editing fo wikipedia. I'm not wikipedia employee and edinting is just hobby in order to give useful information to users. English is not my tongue. So editing contributions and discusiion took many times. Editing contribution may delete someday. Editing of foreign players list took 4 months, Editing of players of major competions took 3 months. But now dissapeared. Eventually, I wasted my presious spare time.

I just want to give the useful information to wikipedia users.

Finally, I accept and understand that consensus of editing changed frequently and editing freedom is very reduced than before In order to prevent wast of my precious time. Before the editing or creative new article, I will grant permission for editing or creattion to controller like GiantSnowman Footwiks (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Footwiks, given your poor English, I really think you'd be better off on the Korean Wiki, where you're less likely to be misunderstood/to misunderstand people. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Lukeno94 here. I suppose Footwiks could still make uncontroversial edits here like updating scoring records or adding new players, but he should not edit war at all costs, and he should also avoid getting into any complex disputes, for example those regarding layout, until his English improves. This may seem a little unfair, but those discussions are too difficult when one party cannot express himself clearly. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• • OK, I accept your advise. I also realized that English wikipedia is only territory of native English Speaker and heavy wikipedia users. As I said again, My editing standard is past consenus. List of foreign Persepolis F.C. players article also had same editing standard. Editing is not my job. It's just my hobby. So I only edited when I have spare time. I don't have time to check out econsensus of article standard is changed or not all the time. And I can't give a response immediatley on discussion everyday.

I think that English wikipedia needs heavy users with much spare time or professional users who can discuss everyday.Footwiks (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't say that the English Wikipedia is only for native speakers; however, you need to have a sufficient grasp of English to be competent enough to edit on this Wiki. Imagine the mess that would occur if I tried to edit the Korean Wikipedia using Google Translate! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have a question. Firstly refer to List of Persepolis F.C. players, These article also have player category who participate in major tounaments and foreign players. Secondly refer to List of Chelsea F.C. players, List of Manchester United F.C. players These article also have captian category and award winners category. What is the difference from my editing version User:GiantSnowman and User:PeeJay2K3 insist that player article only have just listed players category who done some caps. What is the problem of my editing version? Is problem more detailed content about player than articles like List of Chelsea F.C. players, List of Manchester United F.C. players etc Please treat faily.

Don't be afraid of article standard improvement.

My editing version have more useful informaions than GiantSnowman’s editing version (For example, users can find foreign players, captian players, world cup players among all of FC Seoul players.) GiantSnowman is worried about that disunifying of standard unificaion regading player list article of football club all over the world. My editing version don’t disunify of articles standards unification. It is improvement of standard about player list article of football club Footwiks (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been said multiple times, it isn't GiantSnowman's "version" it is one that is supported by community consensus. If I understand you correctly you want to lower the inclusion standards and put a load more players into the lists you've linked, some of which are Featured Articles? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I said multiple times my editing version is also one that is supported by community consensus 2-3 years ago. my editing version have same article standards of List of Persepolis F.C. players

My editing version inclusion standards (Former players, Foreign playes, Captain players, World Cup Players etc)

GiantSnowman editing version inclusion stadndards (Only players list with some caps)

Only Difference of my editing version and List of Persepolis F.C. players is that my editing version is just more detailed. Why do not action on List of Persepolis F.C. players, List of Chelsea F.C. players, List of Manchester United F.C. players? You only do action on List of FC Seoul players tenaciously

Please treat faily. Footwiks (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Footwiks, I genuinely do not know what you are trying to say here, please can you make it clearer? GiantSnowman 10:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, What I mean, my editing version inclusion stadndards is also one that is supported by community consensus 2-3 years ago.

Please reply my question. What is the difference between my editing version of List of FC Seoul players and List of Persepolis F.C. players

Please compare two articles.

1. |List of FC Seoul players-my editing veresion 2. List of Persepolis F.C. players

Difference is my editing version had more detailed informations. Is editing in detail wrong?

Footwiks (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're making little-to-no sense, but from what I can determine you are using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as justification for your edit warring, and for addition of unreferenced material to an article, contrary to consensus? GiantSnowman 10:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I get the feeling that a WP:CIR indefinite block might be needed here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Footwiks, as far as I can tell, your version of the FC Seoul has a much lower threshold for inclusion. Just look at the contents table, Persepolis has 4 categories whereas yours has 39. That's quite a difference. Take a read over at WP:FANCRUFT, while it may be of interest in a specific football wikia, that level of details isn't really suitable here on en.wiki Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate infoboxes userboxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I happened to find this page of an inactive editor which includes some inappropriate and rather useless infoboxes. The page links to File:Citroën DS 21 Pallas (1).jpg. I think the infoboxes should be deleted. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The reference to the file of the Citroën is that people who link to the file can see the infoboxes when they click the page. Since some of the infoboxes are pornographic it doesn't look good for the project. Also MfD is a waste of time since the infoboxes are good candidates for CSD, although I am reluctant to classify them under vandalism G3. But thanks anyway. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware that Wikipedia is not censored? HiLo48 (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware that pornographic pictures and infoboxes userboxes are not normally acceptable on user pages? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Is there a formal policy? HiLo48 (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Policy-wise I'm not sure. But there were repeated discussions about this userpage image, deleted since then. I think also that actual porn images are disabled by the software from appearing on a userpage since then. But I guess userboxes are exempt. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The only image on that user page is one of a machine gun. That's not pornographic. HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. But if you look a bit closer you will see

Say after me... No More Bush, phew! 250px

The redlinked 250px is the deleted link to the porn image. "Bush" is a double entendre and refers to this image. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on. That's ridiculous. It's as if you're going out of your way clicking on random links in the hope that you'll find something to complain about. HiLo48 (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

In what way is the example I gave you of a deleted pornographic picture on a userpage random? Also please leave the personal attacks out. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Also what infoboxes? There aren't any there - though there are some userboxes. GiantSnowman 11:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misspoke. I meant userboxes as in this example. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Firstly, as HiLo48 points out, Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED. Secondly, unless you are saying that the image isn't on the bad image list (where it probably should be limiting it to appropriate pages), I don't see what your point might be. Are you claiming bad image list isn't working if the image is transcluded from an allowed page? If so, I'd be happy to help you put in a critical ticket on Bugzilla to fix that. Technical 13 (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please see my reply to HiLo48 regarding porn images appearing on userpages and follow the link I gave them as an example. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The only image on that user page is one of a machine gun. That's not pornographic. HiLo48 (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I was not talking about the machine gun. Please see my reply to you above. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • See also these repeated and long discussions on Jimbo's talkpage. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • No, I won't go and see those pages. I've shown you the NOTCENSORED policy. Unless you can show us a policy that supports your view, you're wasting our time here. HiLo48 (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• That's your prerogative. But you can't speak on behalf of everyone. Talk about your own time, not "our time". Someone else may find this information useful. The userboxes have already been put at MfD. That's already a positive outcome and not such a waste of time. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• As far as your talk about policy and NOTCENSORED, how would you like to see userboxes like this one in userpages across Wikipedia: User:Qcomplex5/boxes/UBX/random/jo. Do you think userboxes like this one are appropriate in an encyclopaedic project? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I have my own view about the suitability of these images but this is not the place to discuss their deletion or retention. Anyone with a view either way should go to today's MfD page to express it. This isn't an AN/I matter. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree. I was simply responding to the questions posed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Kim Dent-Brown, I don't disagree about the deletion part, but don't those images belong on MediaWiki:Bad image list anyways? Technical 13 (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:AIV

Could we please have an administrator take a look at WP:AIV? It is backlogged and reports have been left without action for several hours. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Commissioner Gordon and disruptive editing at Robert Falcon Scott

Commissioner Gordon (and his self proclaimed second account Team911lotus, diff), has been permanently blocked on the German Wikiepdia (see here, in German)(and see Talk:Robert Falcon Scott#German Wikipedia blocking users for trying to repair and clarify fraudulent misinterpretations in the German Article of Captain Scott.). He edits primarily the Robert Falcon Scott article and its talk page, with some edits to my talk page and to other articles on Antarctic exploration.

He has a very high opinion of Scott and opposes anything in the article which he seems to feel is negative about him. As an example, please see this section of Scott's talk page, where he wants to change a sentence in the article's Lead from "From a previously unassailable position, Scott became a figure of controversy, with questions raised about his competence and character." to this "From a previously unassailable position, Scott became a figure of controversy with questions raised about his competence and character, while it remains unclear, whether these doubts are just a product of a character assassination campaign driven by feelings of envy, grudge and jealousy created by supporters of other polar explorers like Amundsen and Shackleton, who felt offended as they alledgedly came short concerning publicly displayed honour and appreciation towards them." The section then gets bogged down in a discussion of the meaning of stoicism.

It's not me having a high opinion on Scott, but this guy being a fanatic supporter of Ernest Shackleton fighting any edit saying anything remotely positive about Scott. He is also part of a minor fraction trying to defame and villainize Captain Scott, to the extreme that they composed an utterly biased article whose neutrality has been disputed but which can nevertheless be found on any searches relating to Scott. This article should be banned ASAP as it is an accumulation of false pretenses, concealments and distorted facts.

The change he is talking about was only supposed on the discussion page by me and not in the article itself. The complaining user has repeatedly reverted any attempt of trying to rectify the distorted misrepresantations, like for example quotes by fellow and highly praised antarctic exploreres Mikkelsen and Borchgrevink, while his whole attitude can only be desribed as defaming and presemptuous.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed some of his edits to the Scott article - please see Talk:Robert Falcon Scott#Bold, revert, and discuss. I have a lot to do today IRL, so just read the Scott talk page section on BRD. Things had settled down until today. Now he is back and is flirting with WP:3RR for these three edits removing the {{Main}} link to Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott for being of disputed neutrality: [191], [192], and [193]. Note - I removed the NPOV tag from the Controversies article as it was based on the lead not having references diff.

The controversies about the article

Main article: Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott

is not only about the lead. This so-called lead takes about 50% of the article's text, therefore omitting fellow wikipedians the possibility to change ANYTHING. Apart from that, the article refers to merely a hand-full of authors and therefore is a strong candidate for consideartion of this golden rule by the wikipedia inventor himself

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia"

Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight

CG has accused me of "defraud" see the Talk:Robert Falcon Scott#Commissioner Gordon, please stop section and if you want more of his invective (some auf deutsch) please see User talk:Ruhrfisch#Disputes between two great men - is it worth disturbing their peace?. I have a whole lot to do still tonight in real life and am going to post this, notify him (as I also have warned him about sockpuppets and 3RR and no personal attacks) and get back to work on something I get paid for. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This user has not only defrauded the Wikipedia Community of an original image of a statue of Captain Scott, he has also managed to cut out the possibility of "undoing" his deletion. I have made a screen cap of the original version history, which obviously has been falsified....--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Commissioner Gordon, just put your posts at the bottom of the section (like this one). You are messing up my post with your interpolations.

For the record I have made a total of 3 edits to Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott, see here Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am just replying to your allegations on spot, and by the way, it was you who also tried to put the blame on me, misplacing a comment by another user into a conversation between us two, trying to put the wool over the community's eyes here and then talk yourself out of the matter with a paltry excuse on the discussion page...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARobert_Falcon_Scott&diff=565398440&oldid=565185175

Comment by user 86.131.44.59:

"It is suspicious that Ruhrfisch (a German name...) is trying to defend the problematic German site and discouraging us from discussing it here in English (and thus alerting a worldwide audience to the potential fraud...). Can Wikipedia step in and sack the German wiki administrators who are responsible? As far as I can make out from the German website, there is one main perpetrator calling himself "Jamiri", and one or two supporting sycophants. Taking out the main perpetrator would probably suffice as the first step, so Ruhrfisch should have nothing to fear, initially. "

And here the fresh evidence of how you cut out the "undo" option (right at the bottom the last edit on 18th of march, 2012:

http://www.upload-pictures.de/bild.php/37124,verstossruhrfisch8KRMW.jpg

In comparison, the version history after another "intervention" by the user "Ruhrfisch" , to cover his tracks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Falcon_Scott&offset=20120423141643&action=history --Commissioner Gordon (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked Commissioner Gordon for one week for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Ruhrfisch, you have the patience of a saint; fortunately, I do not. I've also blocked the illegitimate alternative account indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Bbb23 - I once stupidly blocked someone I was in a dispute with (then unblocked them). Since then I try very hard to be more patient, but my halo slips often. ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know until now that people threw boomerangs in the Arctic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

And his block is "illegal", of course. [194] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

When was the last time someone saw a real living fish in the Ruhr? Drmies (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Jason Gianginis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin quickly check if this page has been deleted before? The reason I'm asking is because of suspicious dates (July 2013) in templates on the page, indicating a possible copy/paste recreation. The user has not been notified of a speedy deletion, which is why I could very well be wrong (in that case apologies to you, Jason Gianginis). The "website" link on the article Jason Gianginis links to a Facebook page which has been deleted. I checked some of the titles on IMDB but can't find a "Jason Gianginis" in any of them, nor is there a "Jason Gianginis" found with IMDB search. Ginsuloft (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's been deleted before, it was at a different title, as there's no deleted revisions of the page. (Also, next time you might want to post at WP:AN as this isn't really an "incident". ) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I did think of posting at AN first, but the page notice says: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest." with the bold/italics and red text. Ginsuloft (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of images as RS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Discussion (or the attempt at it) has been going on for some time now at Haredi Judaism. It relates to additions made by a novice editor User:Jonathan.bluestein. I wish to bring to attention at this point only one issue: That of using images as RS. Is there ever a circumstance when images can be used to cite text? If so, please can someone confirm when they can be used.

Please see Talk:Haredi Judaism#Using images as RS. I had removed the image of the swimming pool which was being used as a reference. It was re-addedby User:Jonathan.bluestein until he removed it himself: [195].

Now he insists on using another image as a source: [196]. I had removed it ([[197]) and he has just re-added it ([198]) after replying to my post at talk. Chesdovi (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. My name's Jonathan Bluestein. I strongly suggest reading the Talk page on Haredi Judaism, to get a sense of what has been going on there as of late, and what Chesdovi has been up to. He has been making tremendous efforts to delete mass amounts of material off that article. As for his claims in this particular discussion:

First image - unlike what he wrote, it was not removed. The use of it as reference has been removed.

Second image - in my opinion, a valid source. Addresses the subject matter. Has copyrights. Was shot at a relevant location and at a relevant time to the subject being discussed. Speaks for itself as proof of a certain claim made in the article's text.

Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not the proper noticeboard for this discussion. Try over in WP:RS/N instead. Mangoe (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Thinking this is the incorrect forum for this discussion, perhaps WP:RS/N and Mangoe suggested or WP:DRN? Anyways, I'm requesting this be closed (since I'm now "involved" or I would have done it myself). Technical 13 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks/ Chesdovi (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification needed on the indefinite topic ban for Yogesh Khandke

Yogesh Khandke was given an indefinite topic ban on everything related to colonialism and Indian history here. I have asked the administrator for clarification on the scope of this TBAN but he has not bothered to respond. I would like to know just how far back in time is YK allowed to edit? I am of the opinion that the article Anti-Muslim violence in India falls under the scope of the ban as it covers Indian history from just before partition up to 2002. This needs to be clarified. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

(1)My topic ban was related to Aryan Invasion Theory some thing that happened thousands of years ago, my involvement in the discussion is limited to events taking place after 1983 and later, very much contemporary events. My topic ban was discussed during user:MRT3366's AN/I case and my editing was not considered inappropriate. My editing subjects have been at a barge pole's length away from the scope of my topic ban imo. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

YK, please could you provide a link to the discussion that delivered this result? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The topic ban terms are extremely broad, but in my opinion, Yogesh's edits to Anti-Muslim violence in India do not fall under the topic ban because he was alive during most of those times. In his own words, he was a teen in 1983. Events of that time are contemporary events, Yogesh has been staying away from the topics that actually initiated his topic ban, and so there is no need to nit·pick. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary history is also history. Yogesh has clearly violaed his topic ban. And he hs been doing so consistently over the past 6 months - exhibituing the exact same behavior pattern of tendentious editing and promotion of fringe views that led to the topic ban in the first place. I am extremely surprised no one has noticed, if I had knewn of the topic ban I would have requested enforcement sseveral months ago.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Last year's events are also recent history, going by the strict definition. So should Yogesh be banned from editing them too? Absurd. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Anir1uph. While I didn't read the entire ban discussion, it appears that the focus is colonialism, not recent events. Yogesh should be careful to avoid the bahvior that led to the ban, but I do not see that edits relating to events in their lifetime should be covered by the ban.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

When referring to history, the boundaries generally apply to anything prior to contemporary history (which, as explained by Anirluph, includes what happened last year and even yesterday). These "history topic bans" must be exact in their definition of history and not simply assume what is included into them.

In fact, with a TBAN on "Colonialism and Indian History", I would assume that any pre-Colonial and post-Colonial Indian history would be fair game.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say "History of Colonial India", it says "Colonialism and Indian History". And events in India after 1983 are very much "Indian History". Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No. "Colonialism and Indian history" can be understood as a single topic. When making restrictions on history, boundaries must be placed on the timeline. Current events, which fall into the realm of contemporary history, are not what people have in mind when they refer to history. And the definition of a "current event" is different depending on the person.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Stating that history is whatever happened before one's lifetime is absurd. It means that for my grandfather a topic ban on history would still allow him to edit articles on World War I. History includes topics described by historians using historical sources and methods - and which includes recent history but not current events. The 2002 Gujarat Violence the 1983 Nellie Massacre, and the history of anti-Muslim violence in India (which deals extensively with colonial and early post-colonial examples) which Yogesh has been extensively involved, are obviously topics of relevance to Indian History - and his editing has been furthering the exact same political points of view that were problematic in his editing of Indian history. Furthermore Yogesh's behavior in editing these topics have been EXACTLY the same that lead to his topic ban. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, yeah. "Current events" are...current...not "within your lifetime". Would the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan be a "current event" for me? "Current event" does not vary and the statement that they do is...puzzling at best. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. By that logic World War 1 would have been a current event for Frank Buckles in 2010 since he was the last surviving American veteran who died in 2011.--70.49.82.207 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not commenting earlier on this, as the admin who originally imposed the restriction. I'm a bit on the fence about this one. On the one hand, I personally would have understood the restriction to be applied widely, including recent history, and I think I once told Yogesh I believed he was breaking the restriction when he was commenting on one of these issues. This is especially since it has been my impression that his conduct in this "recent history" area has been problematic in a similar way, and motivated by a similar set of political-ideological issues, as his conduct in the ancient history area (echoing Maunus' observations above). On the other hand, I can't overlook the coincidence that a similar case is currently under consideration at WP:ARCA, where the arbs recently topic-banned somebody from "Argentinian history" but are now telling him in a clarification request that he is free to edit recent history after 1983. In the end, we might just have to look more closely at whether and how Yogesh's behaviour in the recent history domain is independently objectionable, and if so, reimpose a more clearly defined/clarified/widened form of the topic ban under the discretionary sanctions rule (which wasn't yet in place when the original community topic ban was imposed). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the ARCA ruling is motivated by the fact that the topic that proves difficult for the particular editor to edit usefully ends in 1983, and is no longer relevant for subsequent periods of Atgentinian history. This is not the case in the case of Yogesh's ban because the subject matter that has proved difficult for Yogesh to approach in a useful manner is still present and in effect up untill the very recent history of India.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(1) @user:Kim Dent-Brown: During another editor's AN/I case my comments were hatted for being from a topic banned editor, in response, I said the 2002 events were contemporary events, I was not contradicted,[199] later on the same admin's page when "Darkness Shines" requested clarification, I presented my argument, I was not contradicted.[200] (2) @All: The events which I'm editing are contemporary events to me and a majority of Wikipedia editors, the examples given above: "my grandfather", Frank Buckles are extreme cases. 35% of prolific editors are over 40 years old. Statistically the average age of a Wikipedia editor is 32 years. Aren't these events contemporary ((meaning: belonging to the same age, living or occurring in the same age or time) for the average Wikipedian? Would an editor banned from editing American history and colonialism be banned from editing Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan too? Is his assassination an event in American history, esp. when deciding the scope of a topic ban of someone who was banned for his edits related to 2nd millennium BCE in North American history (3)(a) My ban area is Indian history; the disputed historical event was whether The Aryan migration theory is disputed or not[201] the time frame of this incident is 2000 to 500 BCE. (b) I was sanctioned for slow edit warring. (b)When I my edits were called garbage and reverted, I hit back by undoing those reverts and calling them vandalism.[202] That was the editing behaviour and editing area that caused me to be banned. (4) Since the ban (a) I've stayed many tens of centuries away from date of the dispute I was banned for. (b) Since my ban I've put myself on a zero revert policy, i.e I don't revert anyone who undoes my edits. (c) My last block was over a year ago, and I've made over three thousand[203] edits since on a broad variety of subjects. (d) Since my topic ban I've learnt that it helps the project for editors to be civil and have endevoured to be so. (4) I've made zero article space edits to Anti-Muslim violence in India so the question of edit warring etc. doesn't arise. (5) The said article discusses 1946, 1983 and 2002 as major events, in talk page discussions I've stayed away from 1946. (6) The ban didn't specify a date, I've given no reason imo since my last block a year ago, for the ban to be made stringent. I've tried to make positive contributions to the project as I enjoy doing so, I've taken my ban in the right spirit, by trying to address the causes of sanction, I leave it to the community to judge. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've made 3 edits out of the 3921 edits to 2002 Gujarat violence and zero edits to 1983 Nellie massacre so I don't have extensive involvement as alleged above. I'd be happy to have any of my edits scrutinised for my inability to be useful in any area of Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As a direct participant in the ARCA case, the topic ban was actually the broad Latin American history spectrum. Again the key word here is "history", and what the arbitrators meant by it was "non-contemporary history" (as is common by most individuals).

Bushranger and Maunus are unfairly looking for loopholes in my statement. Yes, obviously WWI is not a current event...but no respectable historian would call it "contemporary history" either. However, Reagan's assassination attempt is certainly within the boundaries of contemporary history (although not a current event).

I haven't checked Yogesh's contributions and in no way am I either supporting them or opposing them. All I am defending is the fact that the history topic ban is ambiguous and in need of more specific restrictions. Yogesh should not be punished for the ambiguity of the ban. I am also not blaming the banning administrator, who is acting based on what seems a common procedure.

The point of my statements it that there is a lesson to be learned from these events (for all administrators and arbitrators), which is that topic bans on "history" must either be specific or include a few more lines that also TBAN contemporary history and current events related to the topic. Perhaps a mention or discussion of this is worth at the WP:TBAN page.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Insults from Guardian of the Rings

Starting edit wars and vandalizing pages wasn't enough for User:Guardian of the Rings, so now he's resorting to insults. This really makes it impossible for me to communicate in any meaningful way with him, no matter the subject you can't discuss anything with someone who calls you a "NEFARIOUS IDIOT" [sic].--Nero the second (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Now he's doing a revert war in my own talk page. Somebody should talk to this guy.--Nero the second (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Address each and every one of the issues raised in my refactored section here, and I will relent from your talk page. You are not going to get by here by running to mama (i.e. AN/I) crying in the manner you have done so far; that's not how AN/I is supposed to function. GotR ^Talk 21:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that he doesn't stop reverting in my talk page even after I pointed to WP:OWNTALK.--Nero the second (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That's stunningly hypocritical of you, isn't it? Now that least of all, you have received my talkback notification, which has served its purpose (I do not know if you use the watchlist), get on with my points. GotR ^Talk 21:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, first, Nero the second is right about WP:OWNTALK, if they want to remove the discussion they are free to do so. Please stop re-adding it. In the interests of trying to resolve this, lets discuss the issue here, rather then edit warring on user talk pages. Second, no one has vandalized anything, accusations of vandalism just add heat to the fire, and don't help resolve a dispute. Monty₈₄₅ 21:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have nothing to say on the content dispute underlying this, but GotR: calling someone a "NEFARIOUS IDIOT" (caps yours) is a personal attack, and that kind of behaviour must cease. Also, any editor is free to remove posts from their own talk page; this is taken to mean they have read the message. Do not re-add messages to talk pages of users who have asked you not to. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Compare this and this. The first revert could be explained by sloppy editing, but the second one is vandalism.--Nero the second (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I note from the "stunningly hypocritical" remark that appeals to avoid personal attacks have fallen on deaf ears. And in any case, the accusation is false, I never reverted GotR when he deleted my messages from his user page.--Nero the second (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see no reason to conclude it is vandalism. For it to be vandalism, the edit must be made in bad faith, with a desire to harm the encyclopedia. It looks like you had an edit war, that happened to include an error. Again, I'm asking you to stop calling it vandalism. If the two of you stop antagonizing each other, perhaps we can get to the underlying issue, and resolve it, rather then having to block one of you or the other. Monty₈₄₅ 21:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No comment on anything else, since it's just repeating, but neither of those is vandalism. The edit messed up the page, but I doubt it was done intentionally. You should read WP:VAND#NOT. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 21:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Back to the underlying editing, Nero the second: Do you have an objection to the edit Guardian of the Rings was trying to make, or only to the version of the page that included the syntax error which messed up the infobox? Monty₈₄₅ 22:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Only with the syntax error, the current version of that page is fine. In fact the core issue was the systematic removal of coordinates and footnotes from a template.--Nero the second (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well in the future, I would strongly recommend that when you dispute only a part of an edit, it really helps to manually undo only that part that you object to. It helps to get a discussion started, and is generally not as likely to offend the person being reverted as a summary revert of the whole edit. Calling another one of the edits botched, and including their name probably didn't help anything. That doesn't excuse the escalation by Guardian of the Rings to calling you nefarious, but it does help to understand how it got there. Reverting an editor across multiple articles is also likely to agitate them. If there is an issue with multiple edits, it can save a lot of grief to go and talk about it first, and certainly before additional reverts. Monty₈₄₅ 22:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

In which, as I will quote myself, you, Mr. Emperor, had a knowingly false or ignorant edit summary (copied from here): On at least three articles, you falsely claimed "WP:EANP, no valid reason for reverting", when my previous summary explains clearly the loss of information imparted by Underlying lk in his previous edits. GotR ^Talk 22:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There you go, just minutes after his avalanche of edit-summary insults he's back to being mocking and condescending (just now).--Nero the second (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop dodging my legitimate concerns about your actions. Remember Eleanor Roosevelt's old saying: "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people". And I'll leave it to others (certainly not you), to decide to what extent you are rabble-rousing. GotR ^Talk 22:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

And I'll leave it to others to decide to what extent such messages are antagonizing, and to what extent they make a normal discussion with this guy even conceivable.--Nero the second (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There you go again. It is indisputable that you have zero will to discuss the three edits in question. We'll see if this post turns into a highly-effective boomerang. GotR ^Talk 23:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I had suspended any edits in the hope that you could be convinced to behave respectfully towards others, and that a conclusion agreeable to both parties could be found, but if anything your behaviour has worsened since this discussion was created. Now you make blatantly false accusations of hypocrisy, ignorance, and whatnot, and more in general (as can be seen from messages here) you demonstrate zero goodwill. You are making it impossible to discuss anything.--Nero the second (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I would think an emperor's, as nearly all politicians', promises would be backfired upon. One should not forget Emperor Nero II is at three reverts, and that he has done a partial revert as well. Sigh...you have my word that I will fulfil this vow, until either there is SNOWball momentum against Nero II's version at TFD, or that discussion closes in favour of the longstanding version. GotR ^Talk 01:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Insults from Guardian of the Rings

Starting edit wars and vandalizing pages wasn't enough for User:Guardian of the Rings, so now he's resorting to insults. This really makes it impossible for me to communicate in any meaningful way with him, no matter the subject you can't discuss anything with someone who calls you a "NEFARIOUS IDIOT" [sic].--Nero the second (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Now he's doing a revert war in my own talk page. Somebody should talk to this guy.--Nero the second (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Address each and every one of the issues raised in my refactored section here, and I will relent from your talk page. You are not going to get by here by running to mama (i.e. AN/I) crying in the manner you have done so far; that's not how AN/I is supposed to function. GotR ^Talk 21:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that he doesn't stop reverting in my talk page even after I pointed to WP:OWNTALK.--Nero the second (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That's stunningly hypocritical of you, isn't it? Now that least of all, you have received my talkback notification, which has served its purpose (I do not know if you use the watchlist), get on with my points. GotR ^Talk 21:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, first, Nero the second is right about WP:OWNTALK, if they want to remove the discussion they are free to do so. Please stop re-adding it. In the interests of trying to resolve this, lets discuss the issue here, rather then edit warring on user talk pages. Second, no one has vandalized anything, accusations of vandalism just add heat to the fire, and don't help resolve a dispute. Monty₈₄₅ 21:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have nothing to say on the content dispute underlying this, but GotR: calling someone a "NEFARIOUS IDIOT" (caps yours) is a personal attack, and that kind of behaviour must cease. Also, any editor is free to remove posts from their own talk page; this is taken to mean they have read the message. Do not re-add messages to talk pages of users who have asked you not to. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Compare this and this. The first revert could be explained by sloppy editing, but the second one is vandalism.--Nero the second (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I note from the "stunningly hypocritical" remark that appeals to avoid personal attacks have fallen on deaf ears. And in any case, the accusation is false, I never reverted GotR when he deleted my messages from his user page.--Nero the second (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see no reason to conclude it is vandalism. For it to be vandalism, the edit must be made in bad faith, with a desire to harm the encyclopedia. It looks like you had an edit war, that happened to include an error. Again, I'm asking you to stop calling it vandalism. If the two of you stop antagonizing each other, perhaps we can get to the underlying issue, and resolve it, rather then having to block one of you or the other. Monty₈₄₅ 21:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No comment on anything else, since it's just repeating, but neither of those is vandalism. The edit messed up the page, but I doubt it was done intentionally. You should read WP:VAND#NOT. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 21:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Back to the underlying editing, Nero the second: Do you have an objection to the edit Guardian of the Rings was trying to make, or only to the version of the page that included the syntax error which messed up the infobox? Monty₈₄₅ 22:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Only with the syntax error, the current version of that page is fine. In fact the core issue was the systematic removal of coordinates and footnotes from a template.--Nero the second (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well in the future, I would strongly recommend that when you dispute only a part of an edit, it really helps to manually undo only that part that you object to. It helps to get a discussion started, and is generally not as likely to offend the person being reverted as a summary revert of the whole edit. Calling another one of the edits botched, and including their name probably didn't help anything. That doesn't excuse the escalation by Guardian of the Rings to calling you nefarious, but it does help to understand how it got there. Reverting an editor across multiple articles is also likely to agitate them. If there is an issue with multiple edits, it can save a lot of grief to go and talk about it first, and certainly before additional reverts. Monty₈₄₅ 22:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

In which, as I will quote myself, you, Mr. Emperor, had a knowingly false or ignorant edit summary (copied from here): On at least three articles, you falsely claimed "WP:EANP, no valid reason for reverting", when my previous summary explains clearly the loss of information imparted by Underlying lk in his previous edits. GotR ^Talk 22:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There you go, just minutes after his avalanche of edit-summary insults he's back to being mocking and condescending (just now).--Nero the second (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop dodging my legitimate concerns about your actions. Remember Eleanor Roosevelt's old saying: "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people". And I'll leave it to others (certainly not you), to decide to what extent you are rabble-rousing. GotR ^Talk 22:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

And I'll leave it to others to decide to what extent such messages are antagonizing, and to what extent they make a normal discussion with this guy even conceivable.--Nero the second (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There you go again. It is indisputable that you have zero will to discuss the three edits in question. We'll see if this post turns into a highly-effective boomerang. GotR ^Talk 23:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I had suspended any edits in the hope that you could be convinced to behave respectfully towards others, and that a conclusion agreeable to both parties could be found, but if anything your behaviour has worsened since this discussion was created. Now you make blatantly false accusations of hypocrisy, ignorance, and whatnot, and more in general (as can be seen from messages here) you demonstrate zero goodwill. You are making it impossible to discuss anything.--Nero the second (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I would think an emperor's, as nearly all politicians', promises would be backfired upon. One should not forget Emperor Nero II is at three reverts, and that he has done a partial revert as well. Sigh...you have my word that I will fulfil this vow, until either there is SNOWball momentum against Nero II's version at TFD, or that discussion closes in favour of the longstanding version. GotR ^Talk 01:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)