Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851

Avenger2015

MOS:TV#Cast explains that there are two ways to present cast content: Actor then role or Role then actor.

Harrison Ford as Han Solo

Han Solo (Harrison Ford)

Avenger2015 has added redundant cast lists to articles with existing character lists, for example here and here. I've explained this to the editor on their talk page at least three times, and have been clear that the articles are intended to be overviews, and that they should not contain incidental characters that are not pertinent to our understanding of the series. User has continued to add ponderous cast lists, without sourcing, without explanation, and without discussion of any sort. They've also added blank cast list sections numerous times including recent ones here and here, and over these four edits (the first few appear to be tests) ([1][2][3][4]) re-added previously removed content. Not sure how to get through to this user since they seem to be editing per their own whims and they refuse to talk. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I empathize with you here, Cyphoidbomb, but I will note that the editor in question has never made an edit outside of article space, and may be unfamiliar with the process by which we ascertain consensus. While a block may ultimately prove to be the only way he "gets the message" (i.e. his editing privileges are interrupted, so he knows something must be wrong), it is not a step I am willing to take at this time. I would appreciate the input of other experienced editors and administrators on this thread and appropriate courses of action thereof. Thanks. Go Phightins! 05:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Go Phightins!, I appreciate your empathy and I get your points, though if a user is not willing to communicate, I'm not sure how they will be able to process any of the information they need to succeed here. I'm not pushing for a block, rather for ANY, form of administrative intervention that results in a change. I have urged them on their talk page to respond to this report. I will wait. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Constant deletion discussions on the iPhone 6 redirect

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

Currently, there is no article pertaining to the iPhone 6, but a redirect was established a while back ago that redirected the phrase to iPhone. This is, and always has been, the way that potential future generations of the iPhone have been dealt with. Redirects have always been fine and nobody has ever questioned the need for a redirect until now. Currently, per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia guidelines prohibit "unannounced" devices and technology to have their own articles. That, even in the face of 77 Million results in a google search. In fact, I have never seen so much coverage of a future iPhone device in reliable sources, than I have seen with the iPhone 6. This is very much unprecedented and only tells me that perhaps WP:CRYSTAL may not apply here. And even if it does, CRYSTAL certainly does not prohibit a common redirect, especially with the millions of reliable sources that link the term "iPhone 6" to the "iPhone" Bottom line, we as Wikipedians are not making the connection, but the connection is being made by reliable sources.

That said, User CloudComputaions latest attempt to get this redirect deleted has gone beyond disruption. He/she has very little experience with Wikipedia policy and guidelines and has been known to WP:SHOUT very loudly on several occasions, [5], [6], [7], [8].

Now normally, another discussion wouldn't matter. I have no problem with discussion, but what happens in a particular discussion such as this, is that the redirect iPhone 6, now has a template at the top of it, which basically stops the redirect from continuing on to its target destination, which is suppose to be the iPhone. The previous discussion lasted nearly a month and a half. The whole while, this template was placed on the page, preventing the redirect from doing its job. This morning, I decided that the redirect needs to stay in order to prevent any disruption of the page and the redirect, all the while letting the "deletion discussion" alone so as to allow the discussion to continue, but allow the redirect to work. Unfortunately, User:Tutelary used WP:ROLLBACK on my edit and restored the template, thereby extending the disruption to the redirect. In addition, I was aware that ROLLBACK was only to be used for vandalism and should not be used to revert long time users in good standing. Many people, myself included, take offense to such use of ROLLBACK, But that is a secondary complaint at this point.

I hope that at the very least, the disruption to the redirect can be cured and that the latest attempt to delete this redirect can be closed as soon as possible.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

* now has a template at the stop of it, which basically stops the redirect from continuing on to its target destination, which is suppose to be the iPhone. Duh, that's what happened at a Redirects for discussion, and removing the template does not stop the discussion, and in fact is beneficial as it aids in getting more people to participate in the discussion. This morning, I decided that the redirect needs to stay in order to prevent any disruption of the page and the redirect, all the while letting the "deletion discussion" alone so as to allow the discussion to continue, but allow the redirect to work. That's not how it works. You don't get to remove the RFD template just because you feel that it will break something, and it's not 'disruption of the page' to have the template there. You seem to have a misinformed manner of viewing RFD and deletion templates. I assume that if an article has been afd'd multiple times, you would want to delete the deletion template informing people of the discussion, too just because it's been nominated a lot? That's what you seem to be making a case for. User:Tutelary used WP:ROLLBACK on my edit and restored the template, thereby extending the disruption to the redirect. I used Twinkle's rollback and used an edit summary. See the diff here; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPhone_6&diff=prev&oldid=621220861 | That's what you're supposed to do; leave the template there. In addition, I was aware that ROLLBACK was only to be used for vandalism and should not be used to revert long time users in good standing. I did not use TW's rollback in that fashion, and use it as a revert button, so I don't have to click 'undo' twice every single freakin' time. Many people, myself included, take offense to such use of ROLLBACK, But that is a secondary complaint at this point. Woo, I used it as a revert button. Big deal. All in all, I think this side of the complaint needs some a boomerang. Tutelary (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Now on the side of the 'constant deletion discussions' point, the user that you seem to be accusing of this has only nominated the article for RFD...*drum roll*...once. Not twice, not three times, not 4 times, not taking 'no' for an answer, only but once. The first nomination was in September 2012, 2nd was in late February 2014, and the third was in May 2014. They were all nominated by different users, not by this exact same user like the misleading section title seems to claim. Tutelary (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I never said or even implied it was the same user. I only stated that there had been four previous nominations. Now Cloud Computation was well aware of the previous three. The user even linked all three previous discussions in this current nomination. And in fact nobody was louder, and mean LOUDER than Cloud Computation in that last discussion, less than three months ago. No way, this user is well aware of what he/she is doing. CC knows that by nominating this for deletion, it will disrupt the redirect and prevent it from functioning. CC is not ignorant of these facts.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No way, this user is well aware of what he/she is doing. CC knows that by nominating this for deletion, it will disrupt the redirect and prevent it from functioning. CC is not ignorant of these facts. Nominating a redirect to be reassessed by the community is not disruptive, and due to the nature of being a redirect, is unavoidable that it will stop working; but for a limited time only. Again, the template itself needs to stay even if you consider it to be a bad faith nomination. Tutelary (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• • • • I'm not really sure why you are defending this disruption by someone with a history of disruption. We let this go last time. A month and a half, we let this disruption go on. Enough is enough already. If this was JUST a discussion, I wouldn't care. But this type of discussion constantly disrupts the flow of the redirect. Three times in the past 5 months. Each time this happens, it disrupts the redirect for over a month. The last time it was a month and a half. At some point this just has to end. It cannot be allowed to go on and on and on. You may think that anyone can nominate a redirect for deletion, but when it gets nominated three times in less than 5 months, I think its time to argue that its being disruptive to nominate it once again. CC had his/her chance to speak in the last discussion. Its over. Time to drop the stick already.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

1. If you really want to keep the redirect, ask an administrator at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not to see do WP:CBALL covers redirects.
2. This redirect is actually a disruption. The RFD will just turn it into an soft redirect for a while.
3. I use CAPS, Bold, Italic and Big fonts because I'm overwhemingly Wikistressed. See User:CloudComputation/Wikistress for more information.
4. I will not make any apologies to the ones who insist on keeping this disruptive, fake redirect.
5. Message to JOJHutton: It will not go on and on only if you (and Luminant, ADNewsom, Rich Farmbourgh, etc.) changed your mind to delete this redirect. One policy wins over one trillion rumors. This redirect will end up like Windows 9.
6. Windows 9 now have 1,.62 Billion results. But, those are from the sources that JOJHutton has said! As now Windows 9 is deleted, why don't delete iPhone 6?!

CloudComputation ^{Talk freely}
_CloudTracker 00:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact Windows 9 was deleted has no relevance whatsoever to whether or not iPhone 6 should or should not be deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Misuse. Windows 9 and iPhone 6 are upcoming (but not confirmed) products and the search results are over a billion, with the sources that JOJHutton has said... Go to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not to ask an sysop do WP:CBALL covers redirect. The other stuff, really, exists... only if it is confirmed. I'll try my best to renominate until iPhone 6 is officially introduced. Until then, you're allowed to vote for a keep, but no name-calling (Wikilawyering troll, as what JOJHutton said) is allowed. Note for JOJHutton: Beware of the 5th Nomination and don't attack the nominator as this enrages him/her. CloudComputation ^{Talk freely}
    _CloudTracker 10:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I'll try my best to renominate until iPhone 6 is officially introduced. - Please note that this sounds very much like a declaration of intent to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Making disruption to (The template in JOJHutton's view) a disruption (The redirect in my point of view) is highly constructive. Minus the negative adds the number.

Report to User:BDD

JOJHutton's account is created in 2008, that means he's bending, offending, breaching Wikipedia policies for 6 years! It's 6 years! Please, when can JOJHutton stop slandering me?! This disruptive user which claims himself as an old, good-standing user while slandering me by calling me a disruptive wikilawyering troll. Help me, BDD! You're a good-standing adminstrator and Wikipedians trust you! (Except the group of crystal balls, they wants you to be desysopped instead) CloudComputation ^{Talk freely}
_CloudTracker 11:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that in Cloud Computation's comparison of "Windows 9" and "iPhone 6", he/she needs to learn how to use "quotes" in a google search in order to refine and define the exact parameters of that search. Without quotes, the search will pull up any and all article that contain the word "Windows" and the number "9", but with quotes, such as typing "Windows 9", the results are not in the billions, as has been alleged, but only a measly few million. That as they say is that.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• • I know that "quotes" includes the word together. iPhone 6 got 42m, not 77m. Windows 9 got 5m. As a reply to JOJHutton. CloudComputation ^{Talk freely}
    _CloudTracker 00:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

***Status of keepers' party members at the 3rd RfD nomination of iPhone 6 as of August 2014***

1. User:Lowellian: Current admin, editing since 2002
2. User:Rich Farmbrough: Desysopped admin with 3 bots, editing since 2004, 29 barnstars
3. User:Nyttend: Current admin, editing since 2006, 41 barnstars
4. User:ADNewsom: Common user, editing since 2008
5. User:Jojhutton: Common user, editing since 2008, would like to be an admin
6. User:Mark Schierbecker: Common user, editing since 2009, 11 barnstars
7. User:Luminant: Blocked user since July 2014, Editing since June 2014

CloudComputation ^{Talk freely}
_CloudTracker 05:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for counting my barnstars! I have some more in a drawer somewhere though, extra shiny ones I think.

Wikipedia does regularly get contributors who decide that "cleaning up redirects" (by deleting them) is a super-duper way to contribute. Trouble is, unless they have a way of finding harmful redirects, they usually create more overhead than they save. Iphone 6 is being viewed about a thousand times a day. Removing this redirect would inconvenience about 360,000 people per year. Not a good idea.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC).

Barnstars are awarded to good-standing users, since good-standing users should improve Wikipedia, why not? The iPhone article doesn't have any information about iPhone 6! Perhaps an "no such article" page can persuade them to find other sources. Infinity bytes, CloudComputation ^{Talk freely}
_CloudTracker 01:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Extreme personal attack

I can't see that there's any justification for this edit summary. Perhaps a block is in order for this editor. 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

:/ Sooner or later, some admin is going to have to take one of these c-word droppers and make an example of them, i.e. in the 1-2 week block range. This is getting out of hand. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

More vicious attacks in a tirade left on my talk page: [9]. 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW see the OP's record at WP:Long term abuse here. Kahastok talk 13:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not going to attempt to justify that edit summary, if you're the same person as this edit then you are hardly in a position to criticize. See the IPs listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP for plenty of other examples. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, so if you think I might be someone who you don't like, it's ok to call me a cunt? 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Here he goes again: [10] 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If you would create an account & stick with it, tensions might drop. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

So it's ok to call someone a cunt if they don't have an account? 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

They're picking on me, I'm only a little IP. Give that whiny record a rest. Listen if you don't wish to be referred to as a dopey fucking cunt, treat people with respect and it'll be reciprocated. Otherwise if you behave like a dopey fucking cunt don't be upset if I call you one. WCM_email 13:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the behaviour of the IP or any other editor. PS: Beware of the boomerang -- GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP The edit summary was quite deliberate on my part, apparently its OK for the IP editor above to repeatedly refer to anyone who has an issue with him in the same manner cunts, cunts, cunts, You dopy little fuck, "wee curry monster", you fucking idiot, told you nicely to fuck off. now fuck off., rv idiot, just fuck off, rm tiresome dickhead, For fuck's sake. Don't revert for no good reason. Do you understand why it pisses people off if their efforts are reverted for no good reason?, rm all the lies of idiots, cunts, retards and wankers

Variously, he'll claim:

• its OK because people revert him solely because he is an IP - which he knows is a lie in my case
• its OK because his edits are superior to everyone else and everyone else is a dopey cunt who can't write an encyclopedia

And as he seems to take delight in targeting articles I've edited I am fucking fed up with it. As far as I can see the guy is simply trolling and opening this ANI thread was just trolling. WCM_email 13:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

OP is now on 5RR after warning at Argentine Military Cemetery. I'd go to WP:AN3, but no point in informing admins in more places than necessary. Kahastok talk 13:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to Australia, which is not within the scope of the LTA filing (Chile, Brazil). Are you alleging that the LTA person/persons are branching out? Tarc (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Its the same guy, he's regularly travelling. If you look at all the IP, you'll find the UK and Canada in there. Check Talk:Ian Gow and it'll confirm his mobile nature - this is why he keeps avoiding long term scrutiny. WCM_email 13:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The LTA notes that the IP has used geolocations in a variety of locations in the past, including the UK and Canada. Australia would not be unusual and the behavioural evidence is compelling.

Including the bad language. This was the first time somebody called somebody else a c*** on the relevant page. It's also the first of the OP's five reverts today (the last of which came after a warning). Kahastok talk 13:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

OP is now blocked for 3RR. Kahastok talk 13:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I blocked the IP after it reverted a 4th time after being properly warned. That doesn't mean the complaint of the IP editor is invalid, though I'm not going to offer an opinion on the substance of it. Monty₈₄₅ 13:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

In response to Monty, I don't believe there is a justification for my edit summary at all. I'm not even going to claim it was justifiable as he did it first (some cunt reverted for no reason) as that is rather childish. But this has been going on for 5 years and I've had enough of it. Why do we even have a WP:CIVIL policy at all - its never enforced? If a named account behaved like this IP editor, he'd have been banned long ago, as he hops IP he gets away with it. Why should editors be expected to simply put up with long term abuse? WCM_email 14:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best solution is to just not give such editors any ammunition to further disrupt process. I know they can get under your skin, but just continuing to deal with them through normal process, and without any overt displays of emotion is the only effective strategy. A decent number of serially disruptive editors feed off the emotions and go out of their way to bait you. Your comment was out of line, but personally, I'm not interested in doing anything about it because the IP editor came here with clearly Unclean hands. Monty₈₄₅ 14:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If it is the same person, then yea, let's call it a wash as they have clearly inflamed the situation over the years. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If it got dealt with during the normal process, do you imagine I would have responded as I did?

No, I basically get told I have to put up with it, I've even had a snarky comment about being the "civility police". This is just a "content dispute" that I should talk out on the article talk page with an editor who responds as above. And too often they've been given fig leafs to hide behind. WCM_email 16:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I sympathize, as I've had somewhat the same problem, a recurring troll who first turned up around 2009 and pops up periodically for the sole purpose as harassment - and since he's likewise able to hop across various IP's around the world, I'm told to ignore it. Your case is rather worse, what with the woman-hating obscenities your IP friend is throwing around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

They're obscenities; "woman hating"--not so much. They sure dislike WCM though, and the feeling is very mutual. I can't fault WCM for their outburst, but this should have gone differently, as anyone can see who looks at the article's history. Bugs, this is not a troll. GoodDay, some people don't wish to get accounts, and nothing can make them get one: saying that they continue as an IP editor to avoid scrutiny is pure bad-faith hypothesis.

So let me just note that all this starts with a somewhat explicit but good-faith and to-the-point edit summary, followed by WCM simply reverting because, well, it's this IP editor: I can see no other reason, and all WCM has to add on the talk page is "it is actually well known"--apparently this was enough for Kahastok to revert, with the net effect of producing a tag team effort that leads to Favonian's block. So what's next, after all this? Srich32977 comes in and does what a decent editor should do: check it out, and edit accordingly ("rm editorializing"). Thank you Srich. In other words, the IP was right after all, despite this revert a long time ago (unexplained, by an IP--and no one batted an eye). So it goes. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Obscenities, obviously. And woman-hating in the same way that "fag" is considered to be gay-hating. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It's no more "woman hating" than calling someone a prick or a dick is "man hating". Such bollocks. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As has been discussed elsewhere, that particular word carries shades of meaning in North America that it does not carry in other parts of the English-speaking world, such as "woman-hating". It is, regardless, offensive and clearly best avoided.

As to Drmies' point about what happened, I disagree with her in policy terms. The source - a BBC TV documentary made by Peter Snow and Dan Snow - was taken offline at some stage. The BBC does not put programmes online permanently, so this is not surprising. That, taken alone, does not mean that verification was failed or that the source is no longer reliable as seems to be implied. Kahastok talk 08:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If I may clarify, most IPs are beneficial to the project. They're the gnome's gnome & I value them highly. However they're a tiny few who aren't helpful, such as the IP jumper-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Does this argument need to spill over into every incident involving personal attacks? It does not matter if it is "woman hating" or not, it was obviously offensive and unacceptable.

This is a simple case, it was a clear cut and very offensive personal attack. I have given the user who made the attack an only warning about personal attacks. If it keeps up we block.

This is biting the newbies in the worst way and it was in a content dispute. That sort of nastiness has a chilling effect and drives off new users and hurts our ability to find neutrality by driving off all but the thickest of skinned.

We don't even talk that way to trolls, banned users and spammers. Chillum 03:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Chillum, the IP is not a newbie: details and links to an LTA file are above. What is more troubling than any incivility (from both sides) is what gave rise to it. I have given an account above, which editors and admins are free to disregard it at their own peril, since that's what usually happens. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Chillum, I don't bite newbies and the accusation is almost as obnoxious as the sanctimonious warning you chose to leave on my talk page. It had already been dealt with, I'd calmed down, apologised and asked for the offensive edit summaries to be redacted and then you steam in half-cocked issuing warnings and laying false accusations of newbie biting. The situation had calmed down as far as I was concerned and to be honest you just brought it back to the boil as far as I'm concerned.
• Drmies can attest that as far as this IP editor is concerned the charge that I only revert because they're an IP is false and despite the abuse I did explain my reasoning for reverting their contribution. WCM_email 10:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• And to add, did you read the above, as that particular IP editor has been calling me a dopey fucking cunt for years, where is your concern, warnings or blocks been for the past 5 years??? Where has been your concern for the chilling effect on my editing? Eh, tell me that mate. WCM_email 10:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, Wee Curry Monster, I read the whole damn thing. I've read just about every fucking word you wasted on this the past couple of years. It's really boring. Clearly you did not read all that I've had to say on the matter, since I have blocked this IP at least once. My concern is for the project. In this particular case, and anyone can see this in the article history, one of the IPs edits is reverted for improper reasons at all. First by another IP, then by you, with a cryptic edit summary: "comment is cited and the political motives are well known - wikipedia neutrally points out the facts that edit was censorship". (No, it wasn't "censorship": extraordinary claims require good, published evidence.) So the IP editor is "censoring"? Their next revert has a decent summary: "what nonsense. political motivation is as clearly expressed now as before. what is removed is the implication that they were somehow being crafty devils and cunningly "knew" something that the British had inexplicably overlooked". And your revert? The same old song: "rv as usual our foul mouthed IP editor from Chile thinks only his edit is allowed". Well, you're right about one thing: "rv as usual", since that's what you seem to do, regardless of the merit of the edit. If I got reverted as often as this person is, I'd get pissed too.

  For the onlookers, WCM pointed at Ian Gow or its talk page for another example of the IP's bad behavior. That article is another where they got into it, and where, the way I look at it, the IP presented (valid) arguments, while the anti-vandal patrol just keeps rooooooling them back. So, you may ask, how did we solve this, since solve it we did? The normal way: with an RfC. The IP did not get their way in the RfC, but the matter was addressed with arguments. And all is calm now in that article.

  I'm not making apologies for the IPs foul language, nor am I condemning WCM for his. It's not the point, nor is WCM's apology (they didn't apologize to the IP, I think). Their charge, that "I've done nothing", that's boloney. I've been trying to mediate and to help--but what WCM and his friends want is simply blocks and protection, and what I want is that IP editors' edits are judged on their content. That's all. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I hadn't thought about commenting on this, but this kind of admin action is exactly part of the reason why much of this is allowed to continue. A number of admins don't bother to read the story behind a situation prior to making decisions (such as placing warnings or blocks). Rarely is any situation at AN/I simple, and it would be best to keep that mentality at other noticeboards (e.g., the 3RR noticeboard, although even then matters also require good analysis) rather than here. WCM had also clearly apologized for the outburst, which is significant since few editors ever do.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 13:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I can see there were no admin actions. What admin action are you talking about?

  The warning was to prevent future incidences, not to punish the earlier incidence. Any user can make a warning and it is not an administrative act. If this is the end of it then fine, but if this type of behavior continues then the warning had been seen. Chillum 15:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did block the IP editor who was complaining about WCM, but that doesn't seem to be what MarshalN20 is upset about. AFAIK, that was the only admin action here. Monty₈₄₅ 15:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not upset, but I am displeased at what I continuously see going on in Wikipedia (meaning that this is not to comment on Chillum as an admin, mainly because I haven't interacted with him at all, but rather on admins in general). I consider this ultimatum placed in WCM's talk page (see [11]), as an unwarranted admin action. Now you may reply to this with a "warnings are not admin tools," but I have learned that warnings placed by admins are always given greater weight than warnings placed by other users. In fact, there are cases when a user's page (usually IP users) is filled with warnings, but admins only take action after seeing another one of them had previously placed a warning. Hence my statement above. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, I want to tell you a story. When I was in grade 3 the other kids would make faces at me until I shouted at them, then I would get sent to a little room to get in trouble for shouting. The other kids got caught making faces sometimes and they got in trouble too but that did not get me out of trouble for shouting. I was told that whatever the other kids did that it was I who was responsible for my behavior.

By grade 4 I had learned not to let other provoke me into getting myself into trouble.

I think this long term disruptive editor has less to lose from a personal attack block than you do. I think you are being baited into shouting insults and that you are making his day by responding in kind. I also think my teachers were right that ultimately it is you who decide how to act to provocation and you who bear the responsibility.

You are being trolled, and you are feeding that troll. Don't let this person provoke you, it is what they want. Chillum 16:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree with that last part. I think the IP isn't really enjoying having their edits reverted constantly. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Trolls like being reverted, they like being yelled at and insulted, the LOVE it when someone else gets in trouble for reacting to them. They want attention and reaction and they want to stir up shit. It is what trolls do.

Now it could be this is not a dedicated troll, but rather someone who is using trolling to get their point of view out there. In which case they would be annoyed are reversion but happy when they bait the person reverting them into doing something they should not.

Trolls hate it when you ignore them. Block, revert, ignore. This is why I don't even template the talk page of a returning troll as they collect block noticed like trophies. Chillum 17:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"Block-revert-ignore" sounds good, but it leaves out an important fact: The difficulty of convincing an admin to block an obvious troll, and the extra attention the troll gets as a result of an admin slapping the reporting user in the face. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to offer a public apology to Chillum for earlier remarks both here and on his talk page. I have already offered a private apology on his talk page but as I also commented here and others have sprung to my defence I felt it important to do so here as well. I thank those who have expressed their concern about the warning but ask you not to challenge Chillum about this any more. Upon reflection, I think he did the right thing and I was out of order. I was annoyed and responded in anger and in a manner that violated the code of conduct I signed up to when I became a wikipedia editor. It would be hypocritical of me to complain about such behaviour in others and not apologise when I behave inappropriately myself. I extend that apology to the IP editor for my remarks. Finally, I would like to thank Chillum for their kindness in responding to me in a calm manner that brought me to my senses.

I am extremely disappointed that Drmies misinterpreted my remarks as being directed at them. They were not, there were intended for Chillum and I acknowledge that as I made them in anger perhaps this was not clear and I didn't express myself as well as I could. However, to respond to his subsequent comments I would also note my disappointment in the claim that I'm reverting solely because it was that IP editor. What he describes as a "somewhat explicit but good-faith and to-the-point edit summary" was one which started by referring to another editor as "some cunt", which is why the edit summary was removed. The edit summary was way out line and my response, which is still there, was to point out it was cited and well-known. The suggestion I reverted solely because of who did it, is an allegation I reject.

I am further troubled by the way he characterises the situation at Talk:Ian Gow. The original edit was a minor edit, where the IP editor removed the make of car claiming it was irrelevant. A number of editors disagreed and suggested it was a relevant detail. In the normal course of events, a discussion would have settled the matter on the talk page. That the normal course of events didn't happen was because this IP editor, simply revert warred multiple editors and contributed a load of foul mouth expletives in talk. They were reverted because they refused to engage in talk not because they were an IP editor. The RFC Drmies imposed was a waste of the communities time, it was simply something that needed a discussion in talk to sort out.

Fundamentally Drmies, you are giving the IP editor a fig leaf to hide behind. You're basically saying its OK for them to respond as they do, when they're reverted if their edit improves the article as you understand why it may make them upset. No one likes to see their edits reverted but a load of good edits does not build up credit to be a total WP:DICK if someone disagrees with them. That they get reverted repeatedly is often down to the way they act.

Baseball Bugs makes a good point above, the guy is trolling and I bet he is having a great laugh everytime you Drmies wade in to defend them.

Furthermore, Drmies claim that all I want is blocks and protection is utter nonsense. What I want is to be able to edit articles without minor disagreements escalating into foul mouthed expletives if someone disagrees with me about an edit. And I want to be able to discuss edits in talk in a reasonable manner, without one editor revert warring multiple editors to impose their will. That is after all how its supposed to work. WCM_email 17:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

WCM, "fig leaf"? Bullshit. (And I have no idea what you mean with comments not aimed at me.) Troll? No. Chillum, you need to look much more carefully. The talk page for Ian Gow is a clear indicator that, if the IP is not just reverted but is allowed to participate in community discussion, there is no problem. To call an RfC over an important matter (where I and others, not just the IP, disagreed with WCM) a "waste of time" is indicative of the attitude here. "Waste of time"? You know collaborative editing requires discussion, right? And that RfC is an accepted and encouraged way or reaching content decisions, right? Those blind reverts you and a bunch of others throw out, those are a waste of time. They're insulting, and they invite the behavior that is here mischaracterized as trolling. Bugs, you should know better: you've been accused of trolling often enough. WCM, "discuss edits in a reasonable manner"? Well, do it then. On Talk:Ian Gow you opened with "I have reverted the IP edits because they removed relevant information from the article, not because they were done by an IP editor", and then you went on to completely fail to address the content question. I see that in 2011 you already had this snarky tone toward uninvolved editors who tried to help, Born2cycle.

Fig leaf, my ass. Please look, all you impartial observers, at Talk:Ian_Gow#The_fully-protected_car_.28or_its_absence.29 (and the RfC I started), which is the first attempt to actually solve the situation--and guess what, the situation was solved with an RfC. And you, WCM, got your car make in the article (yes, the dispute was that silly), and the IP never came back to change it again. Instead of a "thank you Drmies" I get to hear "it was a waste of time"--a waste of my time, yeah. "Defend the IP"--I'll defend any editor who is treated like this one has by a variety of editors, not just you. I won't defend their language or their edit warring, but hey, you've been quite the edit warrior yourself here. Note also that you're the one throwing the c-word around and you didn't get blocked, so maybe you should be grateful. And I wonder: who's following whose edits around? But don't answer that: this thread is already long enough. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies I said it was a waste of the communities time to force an RFC over a trivial edit that could be resolved by reasonable editors in talk. To further make it plain, I meant precisely by a community discussion in talk. It was not a dispute of a level that warranted an RFC, just one foul mouthed stubborn editor who insisted it had to be done their way. If you're upset that I characterise your RFC as a waste of time, then I'm sorry about that but fear of offending you shouldn't stop me from speaking plainly. I nevertheless don't appreciate you inferring motives or emotions in my comments that aren't there.

You're being disingenuous to claim that the IP editor would have engaged in talk if given the opportunity, they wouldn't and they didn't. Thanks for paging Born2cycle because he can confirm they didn't engage in talk. Their participation in the RFC at Talk:Ian Gow was less than optimal such as their repeat of your allegation of anti-IP bigotry. You seem to forget in your rant above that you acknowledged I had been more than reasonable with the guy [12].

As regards your innuendo that I'm following the guy, I very much feel the need to respond to such a blatantly bad faith accusation. Firstly I invite you to explain how I could do so, given the IP is constantly changing. Secondly, I draw your attention to my first edit to the article on 3 March 2011 [13]. WCM_email 19:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. My "rant" was possibly prompted by the rather dumb suggestion that an RfC which settled a dispute was a waste of time. I'm not hurt or upset by it--I just think that it's a stupid statement to make, and I think it's worth pointing that out. As for my "innuendo" and the bad-faith accusation and whatever: I merely inquired how you run into this guy so often. Chicken or egg? It's a valid question. If that question upsets you, well, I'm sorry, but if you take the prerogative of speaking plainly, then so will I. Now, let me offer you one more suggestion: please stop pinging me here. This thread is going nowhere--the IP got blocked, and you didn't, so move on. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I often look at threads where I have participated, and sometimes I notice that although I have made hugely important contributions, in fact I am usually the most important person in the room, everyone is rude to me (maybe they are emotional about something) and it's very difficult to make progress on anything. If things seem to be basically under control otherwise, and I seem to be descending into another argument rather than removing arguments, then the strategy I often adopt in such circumstances is to... walk away.

Don't argue about who has pinged who or who is responsible for speaking plainly first, et cetera. Just, walk away. Sell the last word to a strange guy by the side of the road. Why worry? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Drmies I asked you a direct question, I invited you to explain how I could follow an IP editor whose IP is constantly changing. A question you rather blatantly avoided, to repeat the same innuendo. The answer is that it is in fact virtually impossibly for me to do so and yet you repeat the same innuendo with a further insinuation with reference to the frequency which the IP crops up on my radar. Chicken or egg? Join the dots. WCM_email 21:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, this seems to be a fairly long thread and I was thinking about letting people work it out, but there's something I don't see addressed here, and it doesn't look like anybody's mentioned it. Wee Curry Monster had his topic ban on Falkland Islands topics lifted after he agreed to a 1RR condition. "I agree to a voluntary 1RR restriction on Falklands topics." Has anyone taken a look to see if that's been honoured in all this mess? Wee Curry Monster is supposed to be extra careful on these pages. Multiple reverts and incivility on a Falklands war related page is part of a pattern of behaviour beyond this incident or the other user involved.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Paging Nick-D my mentor. It is completely untrue to claim I was blocked for incivility; pointedly it was noted that I had remained civil despite being provoked by a number of editors. The actual reason for the topic ban if you boil it down was to vociferously defend myself in talk pages and its one of this wikipedia situations where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Now this isn't the first time that Elaqueate has chosen to fling this at me, I'm getting rather tired of having to defend myself against these false accusations. The 1RR restriction is a voluntary thing on my part and I have stuck to it with one this one exception, when I got fed up with this. I have done exactly I said I would focusing on my editing and just helped take Falkland Islands to FA status. WCM_email 06:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It was a voluntary condition you undertook as part of lifting a topic ban. I don't think that's the same thing as saying it's voluntary as to whether you bother with it after you commit to it. Is it only a condition when you're not fed up, and non-binding when you are fed up? If you're here saying that you were topic-banned due to the behaviour of others, then I think you are back-tracking on what you said at your topic ban lifting. You are not "damned if you don't" if you don't vociferously respond in talk pages. That's what you were topic banned for six months for, and if you're still characterizing it as needful somehow, there's a problem.

As far as bringing it up here, this is an ANI incident where you "got fed up" and reverted multiple times on a Falkland Islands page. Why shouldn't there be passing notice of your topic ban condition for exactly that? Why wasn't there notice of your topic ban condition? A directly relevant editing restriction seems like the kind of thing you should have passed on to Chillum when you thought they didn't have the full background story.

Since you say incivility had no part in your topic bans, I should take a look over those discussions. Maybe you point out to me where you were cleared of any incivility in your topic ban. I see many accusations of behavior that would be classified as uncivil and I can't see what you're referring to. Even in the discussion regarding the lifting of your topic ban, people who supported you still mention that you got into an uncivil dustups contrary to what you state in your request. I'm fine with looking further into it.__ E L A Q U E A T E 09:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

WCM; I concur that the topic ban was not imposed for incivility per-se, though the issues which led to it did include impolite treatment of other editors. I have to agree that you violated the 1RR arrangement here though: the IP's behaviour wasn't helpful, and I note that they appear to have a seriously problematic history, but their edits weren't vandalism and you should have asked an admin to intervene or waited for other editors to respond. Dropping the C word also wasn't a good idea at all and I'd urge you to not do it again on Wikipedia, but isn't directly relevant to the terms of your topic ban being lifted (I don't claim to be an angel when it comes to not swearing on Wikipedia, but the C word is pretty much guaranteed to cause offence to a range of editors, regardless of circumstances). Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nick-D Nick, I agree with everything you said. That is why I apologised, undertook not to repeat it (and if I do I expect Chillum to carry out his undertaking to block me if I renege on that promise) and I think you'll agree it was uncharacteristic. If I'm mistaken please correct me, the 1RR restriction wasn't a condition of the removal of the topic ban it was something I undertook to do voluntarily to keep out of trouble and I've stuck to it with this one exception. I have also made an effort to be more culturally sensitive ie not reply in Glaswegian to delicate flowers.

You suggested I should have gone to an admin and part of the problem is I did. Please note the date of this diff You dopy little fuck, "wee curry monster" and I've been having the same thing from this editor ever since. I've now had the admin I asked for help accusing me of A) only wanting blocks and bans and now B) of somehow stalking an IP hopping editor looking for trouble. Please can someone explain how I'm supposed to do that? If I'm apparently running into the same IP hoppping editor repeatedly but given only one of us can knows how to find the other it doesn't take a genius to figure out who is stalking who. Why is such a ludicrous allegation allowed to be levelled and not challenged? I don't want anyone blocked or banned, I've never asked for either only for the opportunity to discuss my edits in a reasonable manner. WCM_email 15:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I won't hold my breath waiting for Wee Curry Monster to retract his "false accusations" comment, but I will note that I never said he was topic-banned specifically for incivility (when I mentioned that he had been uncivil on those pages before his topic ban, I didn't think that was a matter of serious debate.) I'm afraid that I can't see this, "I agree to a voluntary 1RR restriction on Falklands topics." as being something unrelated to the lifting of the topic ban, as it was directly part of the argument that the topic ban should be lifted. If it had already been part of WCM's philosophy of editing, it wouldn't have been suggested to him as something to offer at the topic ban lifting stage. Nick-D or another admin may have a better understanding about it. It does seem like following it would have helped prevent this thread, and I can see how it still might help prevent the type of conflicts that happened before. My general understanding was that voluntary restrictions undertaken in arguments to modify bans and blocks are something admins could choose to enforce or not enforce at their discretion, depending on if they believed there was a repeat of any of the behavior that caused the original sanction.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a delicate flower and swear a fair bit (hey, I'm Australian!), but using the C word is guaranteed to get lots of people offside quickly, and is not suitable for use here IMO. Given the 1RR arrangement, I'd suggest that you should have asked someone else to intervene or stepped back when the IP continued edit warring given that you can't do so. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak to the details of this specific case, it seems to go far deeper than my involvement. I will say that if sanctions were strongly considered and were prevented by a voluntary promise then that promise would be binding. I am not sure if this applies in this case as I do not know the full nuance of it. Chillum 03:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, this is the first time that WCM hasn't stuck to the 1RR agreement concerning the Falkland Islands since the topic ban was lifted in February, which is good work. If my understanding here is correct, I'd suggest that there's no need for a sanction beyond the comments made in this thread (and I do note the provocation to which he was responding here). Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there is no point in a sanction here, and wasn't calling for one. I had thought there should be some acknowledgment that the agreement existed, and was slightly more binding than how WCM decided it applied based solely on his own discretion and mood at times of great stress. I think it protects him from avoidable drama as much as it encourages the peace of the project, but only as long it's followed at those times when it's hardest to follow it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You can see the IP is right though if you look at the situation and what gave rise to it. That doesn't excuse the actions of both sides though. Kirothereaper (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

General Comment When people talk, sometimes they speak without engaging their brain and the occasional bad word comes out. That's life. When peole write, they have to engage their brain first and I can see no excuse for swearing in writing. If these bad words have been written per the claims above then as far as I am concerned, it is a "slam dunk" and action needs to be taken. If people need to swear then please can they be encouraged to find a suitable forum, i.e. not here. Op47 (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Qxukhgiels

Behavior of Qxukhgiels (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanja Bulić (2nd nomination) has been substandard. Apart from a giant failure of following WP:BEFORE, first removing [14] and then striking other people's comments [15] in a deletion debate where you were a nominator, and then edit-warring about it [16] strongly suggest a lack of clue. No such user (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I explained the procedure. You probably want to take these kinds of issues to WT:AFD in the future, it's not really an issue requiring admin attention unless it escalates further. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

He has been around since 2012, and possibly longer [17], and knows a lot of WP:ALPHABETSOUP, including WP:DICK. Somehow, I don't find that the Hanlon's razor applies, and my supplies of AGF are somewhat short. No such user (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

When my supplies of AGF are somewhat short, I find a WB helps restore them much faster than a visit to ANI, hint hint. betafive 09:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Heed betafive's wise words. Kirothereaper (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I had expressed a concern that this article may not meet WP:AUTHOR and maybe not even WP:GNG. Both of the comments (the one I struck and the one I removed) relied on arguments specified at WP:ATA, including WP:LASTTIME, WP:MUST, WP:GHITS, WP:ASSERTN, etc. This is the main reason I removed them. Aside from this, User:No such user's comment ([18]) of "disruptive nomination. Homework: read the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanja Bulić first, or just fucking type his name in Google" may constitute a personal attack and is a sign of dickery. I have again removed this per WP:RPA. Upon Google searching the topic, most of the results you get are for social networks, blogs, and the so called "internet farms." Many of these are circular references or mirror sites to WP. As I mentioned on the AfD, this ANI report has not accomplished much.-Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This AfD has already passed it's seven days, and should've been already closed by now.Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop removing my comments, or anybody else's, from that Afd, as you were already warned by two administrators. That's a comment relevant for the afd outcome. Also, stay off my talk page. There was no "personal attack" in my afd comment, as it only points to your apparent laziness to read the previous afd, or to click any of the links at the top of that page. WP:RPA is not a policy, it is and it is certainly not your business to apply it, as you have a conflict of interest on that page as a nominator. I'd ask an admin to finally close that ridiculous AfD and apply an appropriate cluebat at your direction, because you just don't get it. No such user (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

...starting, maybe, from his WP:ROLLBACK rights per [19] No such user (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we close this now. Everything that needed to be said was said, the AfD outcome is predictable at this point, and there's little to be gained from escalating this discussion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Lord of Rivendell's sockpuppet Eldarion of Gondor and Arnor

Resolved

 – Indeffed by FPaS

• Eldarion of Gondor and Arnor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Hi there. There was a user called Lord of Rivendell which caused a lot of trouble(check his history) and blocked more than 3 times(check his talk page). We have opened up a discussion about his sockpuppetry(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lord of Rivendell) but he continues to do distruptive edits on Turkey and related articles. Favonian protected Turkey at the moment but Eldarion of Gondor and Arnor will do these things again. Could you please find a solution. elmasmelih 12:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Decent circumstantial evidence of being a sock, I'm guessing it will probably draw a block from another admin, but its not quite enough for me to pull the trigger personally. On the chance that they don't end up blocked as a sock, I've issued an edit warring warning. Monty₈₄₅ 12:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

User:NigelHowells

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.

---

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

I have a feeling this is a sock of someone given the editing pattern (might be a compromised account maybe). Blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There has been some discussion recently about the issue of hoaxes in Wikipedia. My gut feeling is that this editor was kind of testing Wikipedia's hoax detection ability. The edits were remarkably unverifiable, some of them dubious; yet not always obvious hoaxes and cited to some obscure off-line sources. The editor's comment that the article of a pornographic actress should be speedy kept because she has donated to autism causes seemed rather sarcastic/trollish. Iselilja (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems like an odd first edit after not editing for seven years, and then busily creating more articles. Bahooka (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This is an odd one, and he certainly seems to be jerking us around. His only contribution before today was over seven years ago, to file a frivolous arbitration request, which was rejected, about a joke "religion" called Briefsism. The history of that ten-times-deleted article, and its AfD show a long string of SPAs, mostly blocked.

He has also filed a DRV for John Bambenek, another much-fought-over article from 2006/7 with a history plagued by SPAs and sockpuppets.

That is all much too old for a checkuser, but it seems extremely likely that he has used other accounts, and also that he is WP:NOTHERE to help. JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious the user is a well-known LTA from their second edit (which I removed). Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

NigelHowells is now unblocked and making the same kinds of edits. Bahooka (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see the recent contributions of this user, since his previous block was listed has created a number of hoaxes. e.g. See those listed in DRV, and others created in his history. e.g. Gavin Neale who apparently plays for Liverpool F.C. with the only cite being to a club board meeting - I some how doubt NigelHowells was there and that the information would not be published elsewhere (with Liverpool FC listing their squard, U21, U18 etc. on their official website).

He has also taken to removing the CSD notices on this stuff and issuing vandalism warnings to those tagging this junk. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I put a link in the other section that shows User:NigelHowells is a particular LTA and needs to be indeffed quickly and quietly. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2014 (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.

Massive creation of CSD material by User:Scymso

User:Scymso creates a lot of articles, which are typically one-line stubs. Articles get nominated for speedy deletion and get deleted on a regular basis (some of them survive, I guess mostly because other users find reliable sources - I did it a couple of times). His talk page has an evidence of over 60 CSD nominations, mostly successfull. A couple of months ago, I tried to talk to him and explain that one-line undersourced and unsourced stubs are not really welcome, but did not get any response. From what I see, he never responded on his talk page, and never tries to improve his writing style or to source any of his article, merely continued creation. Should we do smth about this, or should we just let it go?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• As these are BLP articles I think we need to act. Scymso has figured out a way to avoid BLPPROD by adding unreliable and often useless links to the articles being created. Given the total lack of response to attempts to communicate, I believe the appropriate action would be to block until such time as they open a dialog, and then leave it to the discretion of any admin reviewing the unblock request whether the article creation and BLP concerns are adequately addressed. Monty₈₄₅ 18:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I've gone ahead and blocked. I will communicate to the user that indefinite does not mean forever, and suggest that, at the least, an understanding of WP:BLP would be necessary to warrant an unblock. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

IP editing disruptively

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.

---

All the edits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are disruptive, unsourced, POV pushing material. Reverting explaining the edit doesn't work. Repeats behaviour next day. Kingsindian (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

When you left a note on his talk page asking him to enter into a discussion, before you came here, what did he say in response? --Jayron32 19:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Kingsindian, it's always useful to talk to users who make problematic edits. If they don't respond to a note on their page and carry on adding unsourced material, then it's easier for an admin to act. I don't mean to criticize you, and thank you for bringing the issue here, but the IP won't get much information from merely being reverted. They may not even be aware of what the history tab is for, so edit summaries are a very dodgy way of communicating with them. They may even get the impression that it's all right for them to revert, too. I've put a notice on their page asking them to source their edits. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC).

Thanks, I will drop this for the moment and see if this behaviour recurs. Kingsindian (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2014 (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.

Ed_Woodward

Hi, can we get the following rev-del'd, dont think we need ip's threatening to kill people (im taking the claims as baseless or would have whipped this over to emergency).

[20]

Can we also block the IP User:79.64.105.185 I'd hate to think they might feel like they've got away with it. Amortias (T)(C) 20:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP 2 weeks for disruptive editing. I'm not sure that revdel is necessary though.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe for the idiotic threats the IP made. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've just semi-protected the page for two weeks as well. If any admin wants to revdel, I wouldn't object but that is something that I was leaving for discussion. The other actions, I felt comfortable making right away.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Matthiaspaul

Hi.

I have been wanting to avoid coming here for a long time but it appears it cannot be avoided. User talk:Matthiaspaul and I contribute to the computing area of Wikipedia. We disagree a lot. Except, his manner is somewhat lacking. He never talks to me; he may talk at me if he condescends. (Wikipedians in dispute must communicate much more.) And he never assume good faith, rather he directly accuses me of sabotage.

• Instance #1: I filed a technical move request for moving CMD.EXE to cmd.exe. Obviously, he disagrees and contacts the moving admin. So far, okay. But in his message, Matthiaspaul:

1. Accuses me of deliberately ignoring a consensus. ("Lisa was fully aware of MOS:COMPUTING as well as of this move discussion, but has announced to ignore the consensus.")
2. Accuses me of verbally attacking administrator User:Jenks24. (Jenks24 later refutes this. Still, what does rudeness have to do with the appropriateness of a rename request?)
3. Accuses me of gaming the system by bypassing the procedure. ("If Lisa really wants the article names changed for some odd reasons, she should issue proper move discussions, instead of trying to game the system by bypassing the procedure.") This sentence is equal to saying WP:RM/TR is not the procedure.

• Instance #2: This time, I am subjected to personal attack in spite of having done absolutely nothing. Following the closure and eventual move of CMD.EXE to cmd.exe, another user asks whether the remaining pages must be moved or they need a separate move discussion. Matthiaspaul objects by saying:

I get the feeling that Lisa and Fleet in a concerted effort are violently attempting to force the lowercase forms into articles where they do not belong into, and this is really getting annoying with all their (groundless) personal attacks and aggressive editing/reverting.

What? I didn't even say a word; how does it become "personal attacks and aggressive editing/reverting"? Since when does starting a dispute resolution process is counted as "concerted effort to violently attempting ..."? If anything, there were six other supporting parties in that discussion.

These points are just tip of the ice berg, with the ice berg being the neighboring diffs or more talks in the same talk pages. But there are more disputes. For example, back in 2013, I filed a WP:RM/TR request for CHKDSK, which was rejected. An admin started a full RM on my behalf without asking me (definitely in good faith) but in the interest of avoiding WP:POINT, I withdrew the full discussion. Matthiaspaul revived it simply to exhibit his opposition and his message accused me of subverting MOS:COMPUTING for my own purpose. (This issue actually came up in Talk:Cmd.exe § ‎Move request – CMD.EXE to Cmd.exe.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lisa! I am confused about what sort of intervention you are requesting from administrators. May I suggest WP:DRR? betafive 17:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Betafive. It appear you did not notice that I am just out of a successful WP:DRR. Stress on successful. Here is what I am requesting.

Bearing in mind that civility and collegial cooperation is one of our founding pillars here, I am starting to feel concerned that if he keeps dragging my name in the mud like that, I lose my reputation unjustly. If people keep hearing "Codename Lisa lied" repeatedly enough, regardless of the fact, they start to look at me like a liar. (This has actually happened once.) I perfectly understand that admins are not at liberty to kick anyone out of Wikipedia permanently just because of offending someone a couple of times. And we certainly don't want to lose a knowledgeable editor, do we? But a warning at this stage has significant remedial power. So, for now, please tell him to stop.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Preliminary admin note - I would like to give Matthiaspaul a chance to respond to this - he does not appear to have edited since the initiation of this discussion - but preliminarily, I will comment that editors are encouraged to cultivate a collegial atmosphere conducive to collaboration, a standard that some of the edits above do not appear to meet. That said, I would like to give Matthiaspaul a chance to respond in case there is any confusion. Thanks. Go Phightins! 04:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Note - I have alerted Anthony Appleyard to this conversation as he was the one that Matthiaspaul appealed to with regards to the page moves. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a very strange thing in MP's edits; a Codename Lisa-fighting mentality.

It was I who started the WP:RM discussion in Talk:Cmd.exe and I saw it end. But he says "...Lisa and Fleet in a concerted effort are violently attempting...". (Call me crazy but I feel he is denying me the credit the should be solely mine.)

Another example is: Command Prompt. Five editors reverted there, an IP user edit-warred. Two of these users are those against whom there is (or at least, once has been) a certain degree of intolerance in ANI and AN3: Dogmaticeclectic and I. Yet, MP constantly calls it "Codename Lisa's edit war".

What MP did in CHKDSK is a little queer too. I definitely won't revive a withdrawn proposal to oppose it, much less to call the OP a liar. I'd just do nothing. If it was just reviving and one forth-and-back revert, you could assume good faith. But you can't mistakes trees for a jungle, can you?

Fleet Command (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest closing this frivolous report, warning User:Codename Lisa for making a frivolous report, and warning User:FleetCommand for purposely using a link to my username that does not notify me of its use. (Note that these two users have thrown around personal attacks left and right yet this seems to have been ignored by administrators for some reason.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Dogmaticeclectic: I briefly looked at this, and I believe that the report is not frivolous. As FleetCommand's usage of your name does not call into question of your actions, it's not really an issue, although he probably should have let you know on your talk page about this conversation. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism by different IPs, different Usernames

All edits are by different IPs and different Usernames but they always add the same sentence (He lives in the shadow of his uncles majesty.) since 1,5 years. Is there anything that can be done about this or do we just need to revert the edits over and over again? 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Dynara23 | talk 21:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC).

Semi-protected the article for six months for the slow edit-warring and added PC1.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

that is creepy poetic. Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

ISO 8601

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: JMJimmy insists on installing and reinstating a completely incomprehensible version of ISO 8601#Date. The editor has participated in extensive talk page discussion, but his responses are indirect, discursive, and difficult to comprehend. I am unable to discern if the editor sincerely believes the editors edits are useful, or if the editor is a troll. I started an RFC, Talk:ISO 8601#RFC: Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar?, but not enough editors participated to convince the editor that the editor was in an extreme minority. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems an insane amount of work to go through if I were trolling. The version, prior to any edits by myself, contained factually false information, information not relevant to the standard, and it generally lacked a significant amount of relevant information. My good faith edits to improve and add to it have been met with hostility from Jc3s5h who was the source of some of the information. I have, repeatedly, made revisions to remove/adjust my contributions when consensus was reached whereas Jc3s5h prefers to delete text and make bad faith* edits for content that is being discussed on the talk page before consensus is reached. Why this was escalated to administrators I do not know, I would think there are more appropriate resolution processes to attempt before going to this extreme. *Note, for clarity, I believe that edit to be in bad faith as, even after significant discussion on the topic and clear evidence in the text, it intentionally seeks to change the meaning back to Jc3s5h viewpoint despite no evidence/supporting documentation/opinions other than his to the contrary. It also removes 99% of the information I added in good faith, cited, and worked with other editors to improve. JMJimmy (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Neither version is particularly well worded in my opinion. MaybeWP:3O would help? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC).

I don't know which two versions Rich Farmbrough is referring to. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

MaybeWP:3O would help?

The disagreements may be more complex than appropriate for WP:30. A third editor - myself - is involved. Mostly I tend to agree with Jc3s5h's viewpoints and disagree with JMJimmy's, but it's not as simple as "two view points, multiple editors". There are several points of disagreement (as I see it), some of which are related to each other:

• Whether or not ISO 8601 defines its own specific version of the Gregorian calendar (I'm not actually clear on whether this is a disputed point or not, but I include it for completeness)
• Whether the year 0000 is a reference point in the proleptic Gregorian calendar
• Whether conversion between other calendars (eg Julian) and Gregorian is within the scope of the standard (and thus the article), and whether parties exchanging date/time data using 8601 are required to mutually agree on such conversion
• Whether the term "Gregorian UTC" is meaningful and/or should be used
• Whether or not 8601 recommends UTC ("Gregorian" or otherwise)

Some of those ought to be able to be split out into separate sections and discussed apart from the others - it might help. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I wrote a rather long response here since Jc3s5h brought in a 3rd editor as well as perusing this dispute mechanism. I think Mitch is right though, this subject is of such a complex nature that a clear guidance from administrators would be appreciated. The above is really the tip of the ice burg if a series wide improvement is ever to occur. JMJimmy (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi! This isn't the appropriate forum for requesting editorial guidance from administrators (and please note that administrators' opinions in matters of disputed content are not generally afforded more import than those of other editors.) You might consider a RFC, or pursuing the dispute-resolution options available at WP:DRR. betafive 18:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I share your view that this is not the appropriate forum, it is merely the one put upon me and being insisted upon. An RFC was initiated by Jc3s5h almost immediately (without really trying to talk through it). Mitch was the only respondent. Just to clarify, I was not meaning intimate that import was somehow to resolve this, just that clear guidance is needed (by consensus or some other mechanism) from those with experience (and ideally knowledge of the subject). It's not really an issue that a weekend-wikier will likely be able to delve into in a meaningful way. 18:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMJimmy (talk • contribs)

Note that some of the disagreements on the ISO 8601 talk page are apparently about policy, not just article content. Both Jc3s5h and I have pointed out that some of JMJimmy's edits and/or talk page assertions are contrary to WP:NOR, but JMJimmy seems to think that it is necessary in this case. I disagree, and said so. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:PSTS / WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD may apply, again I don't think this is the venue for that discussion. WP:RSN or WP:ORN would likely be more suitable. I would maintain that standards fall somewhere between a primary and secondary source. They are primary in the sense that they are similar to law sources in their codification. They are secondary in the sense that they are, in general, the consensus of experts in the field who evaluate the collective sources on a subject. ISOs especially require a multi-stage process that has experts/organizations/governments/committees/etc for peer review prior to publishing, 1 voting member from each participating country in that process and 75% agreement further aids peer review/acceptance, explicit (though lengthy & dense) definitions/document structures which provide detailed guidance on how to interpret and weighting of elements, they are not static like law sources (ie: are updated as expert consensus demands), after official publishing they are opened up further to the global communities being influenced for comments and are not confirmed as stable if any significant issues arise, and finally they are authoritative to all possibilities within their scope. Sources discussing them never cover all possibilities, they often only examine a single perspective of a portion of a standard in context of a particular agreement. The effect is, for the lack of a proper term, a Perspectivism paradox. JMJimmy (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that when in article is about an ISO standard, that ISO standard is necessarily a primary source, and so (quoting WP:PRIMARY) we may "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge", but we may not "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate". Mitch Ames (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

What Admin Action is Requested in This Content Dispute?

What administrative action is being requested in this content dispute? A block? No evidence has been given of personal attacks, disruptive editing, or full-sized edit-warring. A topic ban? No evidence has been given of tendentious editing, ownership behavior, or other issues rising to TBAN. An interaction ban? I see two editors who do not like each other, but it hardly rises to the difficulty of enforcing an IBAN. Why is this at this noticeboard in the first place? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There is an RFC in progress. It hasn't run 30 days, although it clearly won't resolve anything, because it has already resulted in long tedious discussion with no conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing being discussed here that calls for admin action. Either a better RFC should be formulated, and the previous one closed down (if its originator will agree), or the dispute can go to the dispute resolution noticeboard, or something else should be done rather than continuing here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100% - @Jc3s5h: shall we allow the RFC to run its course and see what comes out of it? JMJimmy (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem I have with the way the RFC are responses that, in my mind, are to long to comprehend, bring in irrelevant material, and avoid restrictions made by posters on their statements, for example, an editor adds a sentence to the standard that only applies to standard-compliant representations of dates, but is criticized as if it applied to a much wider range of written dates. I will make one more attempt to participate in the RFC, but will abandon it if I again perceive that contributions are intended to obscure the meaning of the discussion. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The basic problem with the RFC, in my opinion, is that it doesn't have the recommended Survey and Threaded Discussion sections. As a result, it is all Threaded Discussion, and will be nearly impossible to close with any sort of consensus. It will just give posters a chance to post more walls of text that are too long to read. Can someone state a question that can be added to a Survey section (either in the old RFC or a new RFC)? I would do that, but I am not sure what the question is. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again, is there a reason why this was brought to this noticeboard, or was the OP wasting pixels? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

When one editor reverts changes that a few editors view as improvements and discusses the reversion in an incomprehensible manner the article is locked in a form that readers cannot understand. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. The claim that the article is "locked" in a form that readers cannot understand is just plain wrong. It isn't locked. In any case, you haven't answered my question as to why you brought the issue to this noticeboard. What admin action are you requesting? A block for the non-existent lock? A topic-ban for the incomprehensible discussion on the talk page? An IBAN? What? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2014 (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.

Harassment following SPI

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.

---

Borsoka (talk · contribs · count) Made an unfounded accusation that Akifumii (now called Xermano) was a sock. After the case closed with no evidence of socking, Borsoka has apparently continued to harass Xermano (in Hungarian).

• after the SPI case closed

I gave warning that I would act on continued provocation, to no avail.

• my warning
• after I gave warning and Xermano asked Borsoka to stop
• and once more

I'd like an admin response to this witchhunt. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris troutman, would you please ask Xermano to translate my messages? I have not sent any harrasing messages to him/her. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you translate for us, Chris?--v/r - TP 05:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, sure can't. I'd be glad if a third party could handle that. I've notified Xermano of this ANI post. My assumption is based off of Xermano's previous reaction to Borsoka's message. Borsoka has at least become an unwelcome guest at that talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris troutman, would you please stop harrasing me. First you accused me of Wikipedia:OWN (here) without evidence. Next you suggested (also here) that I only initiated a sock-puppet investigation, because an article created by me received a template. Later, without being able to read the message written in Hungarian, you accussed me of harrasing (also here). I again suggest you that you should imagine a world where editors are not driven by bad emotions. Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Also no. I've seen no evidence to refute my assertions. You screwed up and you should've backed away when I warned you at the outset. Believe me, I would be happy to be proved wrong, apologize, and leave this alone. However, you foolishly said "if you think it is harassement, please take me to an ANI" and so I have. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Foolishly? Chris troutman, I again suggest you that you should assume good faith. I said that you could any time take me an ANI, because I was sure that I had not (and I would not) made any harrassement to anybody. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

To avoid a biased translation, I will ask Armbrust, a fellow Hungarian to translate the messages at my talk page. Xermano^Talk 06:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Xermano, I trust your fairness. Please translate it yourself, because you are a native speaker of Hungarian. Actually, I insist on your translation. Borsoka (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused here because your insistence here is basically a declaration against a neutral thrid party being involved. Why?--67.68.22.129 (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Because there is no need to involve a third party. These are so basic texts. You can translate them in 10 minutes, and this case will be closed. Borsoka (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Xermano, I am surprised that you have not translated the texts yet, because you are a native speaker of Hungarian, and your English is excellent. Sorry, but I would like this investigation to be closed in short, because I would like to concentrate on editing articles. Would you please tell us whether my texts on your Talk page contained any harrasing message? If you think there was a harrassing message, please translate only that part. Borsoka (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Xermano, a fellow Hungarian editor, Fakirbakir, expressed his/her doubts about your knowledge of the Hungarian language here. If you are only pretending that you can speak our language, please tell us, because in this case we actually need a translator in order to assist the administrators to close this case. Borsoka (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris troutman You should apologize to Borsoka. Your comment "You screwed up and you should've backed away when I warned you at the outset" is impolite and unacceptable. Regarding the conversation between Xermano and Borsoka, I assume Xermano does not speak Hungarian. Her/his account is suspicious (IMHO). Fakirbakir (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

One does wonder how Akifumii/Xermano, who initially claimed on his userpage that he was a native speaker of Canadian English and French, with professional knowledge of Spanish, Galician and Catalan, and who became a "Translation Administrator" at Wikimedia Outreach (outreach:User:Akifumii), but whose actual "Galician" translations on that project look suspiciously like machine translations and contain some rather glaring errors (see outreach:Best_practices/gl, which among other things translates "best practice articles" as if it meant "best articles about practice" rather than "articles about best practice"), has suddenly become a native speaker of Hungarian with professional knowledge in English, German and Romanian. Isn't it a bit deceptive to make yourself a "translation administrator" on a Wikimedia project on the basis of faked credentials? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise: and he/she also forgot to speak Basque while transforming from Akifumii [21] to Xermano. (Interestingly, Akifumii's Basque knowledge was mentioned during the sock-puppet investigation process. All the same, I am desperately asking the administrators to close this case, because I would really like to concentrate on editing.) Borsoka (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The text Borsoka sent me on my talk page does not contain any harassment of any sort, in my opinion. Sorry lately I have been active on Wikia instead of Wikipedia. All User:Borsoka said was that "We do not need Armbrsut to translate for us. I object a third party to translate my messages" Xermano^Talk 16:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Xermano, thank for the above clarification even if I do not understand why you suggested a third party translation hours ago if you was well aware the fact that I had not harrassed you. Your absent-mindedness could have easily caused new offending or harrassing remarks by Chris troutman about me. I hope the case now can be closed. Have a nice day! I am sure that we (together with Fakirbakir) will continue our communication in our beautiful language and we can cooperate in improving many many articles. Sorry, but it was so strange that you did not want to translate the text, but now I understand you. Your English is not so excellent as I thought, and that is why you were not able to translate exactly my words. Borsoka (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on third-party translation and admin intervention. I suspect shenanigans. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris troutman, are you kidding? You declared that I had harrassed Xermano - Xermano declared that I had not harrassed him/her. Please stop harrassing me. Sorry, but I cannot imagine how you can have any administrative role in our community. Do you really fight against vandalism??? Borsoka (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's ok if User:Chris troutman would like a third party translation even though Borsoka has not harassed me. The third party translator will find nothing bad that Boroka has put on my talk page. @Borsoka: User:Chris troutman is a very experienced editor and my CVUA trainer. He often fights against vandalism and helps other users. Please do not make such assumptions. Xermano^Talk 18:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot imagine how he/she can fight against vandalism. My experiance is that his/her style of communication is uncivil and he/she can only assume bad faith of other editors. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

My main issue with all of this is that even if they aren't a sockpuppet, you think you would like to mention that you are Hungarian under your userboxes on Akifumii's page. On that page, he says that he is Canadian and is studying in the United States. Nowhere does he suggest that he is Hungarian, or a native speaker of the Hungarian language. Personally, it would be hard for me to edit here all of these years, and forget that I know English and grew up in America, as well as visited multiple countries in the meantime. In his rename, he now lives in Budapest, and now speaks Hungarian. The languages were also further jumbled around, with the removal of many of those on Akifumii's page, and the addition of a few others. I am leery of giving any trust to anyone who is acting like this, although I would like to see what others think before I move ahead with any action. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see the messages on User:Xaosflux talk page. Xermano^Talk 03:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ktr101, it was me who initiated a sock puppet investigation against Akifumii (now called Xermano), because I assumed that he/she was identical with Afro-Eurasian. Bbb23 closed it, stating that "Akifumii has an impressive list of credentials, here in a very short time in terms of the privileges that have been accorded him, and elsewhere in other wiki and wikimedia projects that make it unlikely that he is a puppet of anyone". I am a simple editor with no credentials, so I cannot determine whether his/her credentials are authentic or fake. According to Future Perfect at Sunrise's above remark his/her knowledge of Galician (claimed under the name Akifumii) is dubious. All the same, if Akifumii/Xermano is a native speaker of Hungarian, he/she cannot be identical with Afro-Eurasian, because the latter declared (here [22], in the "Personal beliefs" section) that he/she was "Hungarophobe" (and also "Russophobe", "anti-Zionist", etc.). Afro-Eurasian also used disgusting anti-Hungarian slur. Nevertheless, I assume Akifumii/Xermano could not properly translate my Hungarian message because his/her English is poor, not because he/she cannot speak Hungarian. When I suggested him/her a cooperation on his/her Talk page in Hungarian, he/she answered me saying "Thank you" in the same language. There are few Hungarian editors, so I would not like to lose him/her. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Borsoka, Akifiumii got all the advance permissions by deceiving me into granting them and I have just found that out myself through this ANI discussion. So I want to thank you, Borosoka, for spotting something fishy and decided to investigate further. I'm going to start a sub-section below to demonstrate just how far Akifiumii has deceived the community. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what happened to the sub-section, but, regardless of that, the purpose of SPI is to determine whether someone is socking. The burden is on the reporter to present sufficient evidence of socking. Whether the user is a problem in some other way is not the province of SPI. I don't question Borsoka's good faith, but he simply was unable to present sufficient evidence to connect the user with the master. It's fairly usual in such cases to close the report with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, sorry, I did not want to offend you. I remember that during the previous SPI only a CU could prove that the suspected editor, along with many other editors, was in fact Afro-Eurasian's sockpuppet, because the evidence that I presented seemed unsufficient. An administrator initiated a CU because she was also convinced, for reasons she did not want to reveal, that it is a sockpuppetry. Sorry, but my English is rather poor and I am not good at administrative issues, that is why I cannot always express myself properly. Nevertheless, Xermano, who proudly declares that he/she is a native speaker of Hungarian on his/her user page, can hardly be identical with the Hungarophobe, Russophobe, anti-Zionist, ... Afro-Eurasian. Borsoka (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries, Borsoka, I wasn't the least bit offended. Regardless of the socking issue, from the looks of below, Xermano is going to be dealt with. Also, based on the history, I don't believe that OhanaUnited is the only administrator who was fooled.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:, taking into account the events what have happened in the meantime, would you please agree to close my case? I did not harass your pupil. Please, let me concentrate on editing. Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Armbrust: @MusikAnimal: What say you? Chris Troutman (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris troutman, I hope you will learn based on this case when you should be cautious and when you can trust an editor. My feeling is that an editor who is not a native speaker of English is always suspicious for you, especially when this barbarian attacks somebody who has several times expressed his/her thanks for you in excellent English. I understand: the barbarians must always be overcome. Borsoka (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:, @TParis:, I translated my messages. You can read the translations always below the relevant texts here. (Armbrust informed me that he would not like to be involved in the case and he did not like translating.) Borsoka (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Your translations seem to evince your hounding of Akifumii/Xermano. Some of your comments here (about barbarians, etc) including your eagerness for me to let the matter drop indicate to me that you are aware of your guilt. I leapt to Akifumii's defense at the SPI based on my interactions with them for CVUA. Clearly, Akifumii/Xermano has been less than forthcoming and I'm beginning to think I made a mistake getting involved. Still, your conduct needs to be addressed and I'm happy to watch this train-wreck continue until an admin puts an end to it. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:, I know that I am not guilt, because it was not a hounding. It was a hunt for a sockpuppet of a banned editor who was taking a new personality similarly to the way he had several times done beforehead (I refer to my below remarks of the multiple CVs of Afro-Eurasian and his socks). Yes, I have experienced that you can only assume bad faith of those who attack a favorite of yours. This lack of neutrality is the reason I think you should not have any administrative role in our community. You are talking of witchhunt and hounding, but it was you who accused me of WP:OWN without knowing anything of my past, or who accused me of harrasing based on messages written in a language you do not understand. You should be ashamed of your behavior, but it is obvious that you are unable to realize this. Actually, on my part, this was the last piece of communication to you. I wish you new experiences for the future. Borsoka (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Deception by Akifumii/Xermano

Since Xermano disclosed that everything Akifumii provided were "all a dare and a lie", I will be summarizing what Akifumii has emailed me to get various permissions (email copies are available upon request). Akifumii began editing on April 30, 2014. Six days later, he contacted me to inquire how to be involved in Canadian education program. I told him the usual (read five pillars, get some edits, communicate with others). In an email dated May 9, he told me that he is a Canadian from British Columbia and recently moved to California for college. Three days later, he asked me to grant him reviewer and rollbacker. At that point I granted those rights because he seemed to be trustworthy (but now it all appears to be an elaborate scheme/confidence trick to deceive myself and others to get those tools) In June, he made an application to become an online ambassador. He explained to me, through email, that he can only be helping Canadian universities through online and not on-campus since he is in California.

Ever since Akifumii changed his username to Xermano, we're starting to see that his deceptions are finally catching up. Akifumii claims Canada to be his home country and grew up there yet Xermano says he is a native Hungarian. Akifumii absolutely made no mention on Hungary and claimed have visited Brazil during the World Cup in 2012 (wrong, they just hosted it earlier this year). We now know why he wanted to be an online ambassador not because he is studying in California, but because he lives in Hungary. We also noticed the completely absence of Hungarian language on Akifumii's userpage plus a few other languages (e.g. German, Romanian) that mysteriously appeared on Xermano's userpage while Portuguese, Japanese and Chinese were dropped quietly. All these evidences point to the fact that I have lost all confidence in Akifumii/Xermano because we simply don't know when is he telling the truth and when is he giving us crap and bull. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on this behavior, I have removed his "Online volunteer" right, as I am not comfortable with having a user with this kind of edit pattern participate in the program. If anyone wants to revert me, please go ahead and do so as I will not object if a good reason is given, but I just wanted to explain why I did what I did. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, a sockpuppet of the Hungarophobe, ... etc Afro-Eurasian also deceived an administrator [23]. Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

And his online ambassador application successfully deceived User:Neelix into supporting him too. I think all of us fell for it because we all used AGF and he exploited it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Another interesting coincidence, that Afro-Eurasian also changed his identity from his sockpuppet to sockpuppet. Afro-Eurasian was a Latin man who had been born and lived in Florida [24]. One of his sockpuppets, Paleolithic Man also said that he was a man living in Florida, but under a new (Basque) real life name [25]. His next sockpuppet, Southeastern European, said that he had been born in Southeastern Europe [26], but at the same time a fourth (or 14th) sockpuppet said that he is a "Moroccan American" [27]. @Xermano:, please answer my next question: are you a native Hungarian speaker or you are only pretending it? I have not read any long sentence written by you in Hungarian. Borsoka (talk) 06:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Xermano:, igazán elárulhatnád, hogy beszélsz magyarul vagy nem. Jó lenne már lezárni ezt az egész vizsgálatot, mert nagyon unom, hogy állandóan figyelnem kell, éppen ki mit ír ide. Mellesleg, ha nem vagy magyar, akkor biztos vagyok abban, hogy azonos vagy a magyargyűlölő soviniszta Afro-Eurasian-nal, és kezdeményezek egy Wikipedia:LTA vizsgálatot ellened, mivel eddig még a minimális szintjét sem mutattad a megbánásnak gusztustalan magyarellenes megjegyzéseddel kapcsolatban. Borsoka (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that we know his first persona was a lie, and seeing how much effort he put into collecting hats and alleged wiki-qualifications on the basis of that persona, I think it's not unreasonable that we should treat his new persona with the same kind of suspicion. As far as I'm concerned, Xermano had better quickly provide some evidence that at least the linguistic skills of his new persona are true (i.e.: produce some realistic talk in Hungarian + German etc.), or I think I will treat him as some kind of sock or bad-faith account after all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's explanation of the Akifumii/Xermano confidence trick makes sense to me. I was wrong to have supported the online ambassador application. Neelix (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the case is more serious than at first alleged. I asked Xermano in Hungarian a couple days ago (here) but she/he did not reply to me. Borsoka had also asked her/him in Hungarian (see above) but s/he gave no respond. She/he wrote only one Hungarian word "koszonom" (meaning "thank you") here but was unable to write proper Hungarian sentences. A "koszonom" is not a big deal with Google translator, however translator programs are useless at more sophisticated Hungarian sentences. I assume she/he is not from Budapest and not a native Hungarian speaker. Perhaps, an IP address investigation could determine her/his location... Fakirbakir (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Is an IP investigation truly necessary? He hasn't edited since this ANI case against was unveiled, and it sounds as if most of the privileges and rights that he has accumulated as a result of this are being peeled away. It seems that his inability or unwillingness to communicate with User:Borsoka in Hungarian should be enough, right? We don't need to go creeping into his geographical location beyond that, because our goal isn't to prove that he is really living in Hungary right now but that he has the ability to speak Hungarian and participate in those areas of the project where that language skill is needed. If he has those skills, it matters little if he currently lives in Hungary or if he lives in Zimbabwe. If he does NOT have those skills and he is in fact lying, then his present geographic location is not relevant. Alicb (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Alicb:, yes, I think it is necessery. Please see here my reasoning. Borsoka (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

New account info from User:Xaosflux

As seen in this archive on my talk, User:Akifumii and User:Xermano are either the same person (or a compromised account); I assisted in moving permissions from one account to the other that were both strongly linked, and included the relationship in the logs. I have no idea if there was a link beterrn Akifumii and any other accounts prior. If anyone has specific questions about my action, please ping me. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Xaosflux, the issue I raised has nothing to do with suspected sockpuppetry (Afro-Eurasian/Paleolithic Man/Southeastern European) or trasnferring permission from Akifumii to Xermano because I already saw the conversation in your archived usertalk page. It has to be with the all the lies Akifumii made up to get those tools in the first place. I for one am no longer comfortable working with him in the Canadian Education Program because he lacks integrity. In fact, after communicating with Kevin Rutherford, I realized that Akifumii intentionally created a gmail account specifically to pull off this deception. I agree with Fut.Perf. We don't even know if what Xermano told us is even true (or that he is coming clean is actually "clean"). Does anyone disagree if I rescind Akifumii/Xermano's reviewer and rollback rights? (I gave him these rights so I should take responsibility and be the one to clean up this mess.) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have no problem with you removing his user rights. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

OhanaUnited I defer to anyone who wants to handle this, my addition were procedural only. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Afro-Eurasian Borsoka (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

After 3 days and don't see any opposition, I have removed Xermano's rights and deemed the removal to be "under the cloud" as per the general consensus discussed above. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have indeffed both accounts based on the egregious deception. Clearly, the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Editors like this one have no business being permitted to edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. This case draws a lot of similarities to Essjay controversy OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:02, 18 August 2014 (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.

Massive vandalism at Douglas Pereira dos Santos

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'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but there's a giant mess going on at Douglas Pereira dos Santos featuring several IPs and at least two editors with no contributions but vandalizing the article. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Acroterion was kind enough to straighten the mess out. Article semi-protected and socks blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I got interrupted by real life, but have blocked eight accounts and IPs and semi-protected the article for two weeks. I assume the subject changed teams and has enraged some people. Anybody who actually knows his status probably ought to update the article, though outdated at least is better than vandalized. For such large-scale and apparently coordinated vandalism, this is probably the best place to bring it up. Acroterion (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that, that was outright horrible vandalism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification as well. I've never used ANI before, so I wasn't sure about that. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2014 (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.

Personal attacks and legal threats by User:Visakha veera

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

We were having discussion on Talk:Andhra Pradesh when User:Visakha veera gave me legal threat "we will settle this issue in court" on my talk page when I warned the User, the response was personal attack ("you are arguing blindly") & further legal threat ("you are ready for blocking and court cases?") and then further threats ("are you ready for blocking?" & "we will legally solve in court! are you ready?"). The user has done personal attacks on me while having discussion with other user on their talk pages too e.g. here ("arguing blindly") The user is also engaged in WP:Canvassing and trying to form block against me which is clear from the posts made by user here, here and here. I'm feeling shocked & depressed by such vieled personal attacks and legal threats, after so much effort this is what i'm getting from fellow editors.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 19:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Visakha veera has been blocked indefinitely for repeatedly making legal threats like this. I'd also like to note that he had been warned about possible discretionary sanctions in WP:ARBIP territory. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• It's no excuse for Visakha veera's behaviour but the background to it is repeated POV-pushing on Andhra Pradesh (and to a lesser extent also on other articles) by Faizhaider, claiming that Urdu is an official language in post-partition AP, "supporting" his claim with references that say nothing of the sort, while refusing to accept sources, including the Andhra Pradesh government web portal, that say that "the official language in Andhra Pradesh is Telugu", with "official language" in the singular. Which since there's a lot of tension around the status of various languages in India, and perhaps more so in Telangana and "new" Andhra Pradesh (which were split into separate states partly along language lines only two months ago) than in other parts of India, means that there was quite a bit of provocation leading up to the legal threat. Thomas.W ^talk 20:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think that about sums it up. I'm having a hard time digging through Faizhaider's various relevant edits but I agree that he doesn't seem to be quite innocent either in this dispute. I've explained to Visakha Veera that they may be unblocked once they retract the legal threat. But I'm also wondering if a temporary topic ban for both editors as part of an arbitration enforcement would be justified. De728631 (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I would definitely support a topic ban for both editors, regardless of length. A topic ban that for Faizhaider should include adding Urdu as official, co-official or second language to any article relating to India, broadly construed. He has been told to stop his POV-pushing, and knows he's being watched, but a topic ban, regardless of length, would send an even clearer message to him than just a message from me on his talk page. Thomas.W ^talk 06:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Thomas.W, your statement "which were split into separate states partly along language lines only two months ago", tells that although you are involved in the article & discussions but you may not be aware of exact background, Telangana was not carved out of Andhra Pradesh along language lines but in contrast Andhra Pradesh is first non-Hindi state which got splitted and that was due to development issues (and not language).

Admins, my edits may be called POV but they are NPOV as can be seen throughout my discussion I have been patiently answering the points raised by other editors in ambit of WP policies and decorum. But other group seems to come one after one raising same points which I have answered already, then too I didn't lost my cool and urged the editor(s) to go through previous comments. Intrestingly, I have constantly been asked to produce proof from official sources while they are now relying on ambigous blog/news link. When they were not able to answer my points and logic they lost their cool and started abusing me (they also had coversation in Telugu and used words like stubborn to define me). In whole discussion I have been WP:Civil and tried to answer each and every objection. I have given numerous links and quoted Acts & Laws of India & Andhra Pradesh to show status of Hindi, English & other state language(s) but nobody seems to be looking at them and totally ignoring them. User has been removing data on AP and other articles while discussion was going on and that too without edit summary. Recently I have not tried to restore any of the removed content so I fail to understand how that mounts to POV push or edit-war.

I'll urge admins to closely go through the discussion at Talk:Andhra Pradesh and also look at postings of all editors involved on various other User Talk pages as there have been attempt of canvassing, campaigning & lobbying against me & my edits.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved editor, the impression I get is of rather extreme bullying. The legal threats and threats of blocking are obvious violations of WP:BATTLE and despite a sudden retraction, under duress, of the threats, I am not convinced of the sincerity of said retractions. Jusdafax 18:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Neither am I. The unblock request looks to me like the verbatim what they need to say to get immediately unblocked, followed by a series of rants about someone else being the problem, and then another insincere repeat of the verbatim text to get unblocked. Not at all sincere and I think the disruption would continue if they were unblocked.--v/r - TP 19:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Faizhaider, you are in fact edit warring because you keep adding your preferred references although they have been challenged by several other users. All I can see on your part is synthesis (this does not state anything about the official status of any language) and edit warring about it [28][29][30]. You are even being inconsistent in your editing since here and here you remove a statement that said that Urdu was in fact the co-offical language in AP while you keep pointing out that the AP public employment act will "still" be published in Urdu. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Bump. De728631 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Propose topic bans

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.

---

Faizhaider

After reviewing Faizhaider's contributions at the article Andhra Pradesh, the discussion at Talk:Andhra Pradesh and User talk:Faizhaider I conclude that Faizhaider is pushing a somewhat unclear agenda related to adding Urdu as one of the official languages in the current Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Regardless of the merit of sources provided by either side it has become evident that Faizhaider's edits to the article have become disruptive in a manner of edit warring, POV pushing and a lot of WP:IDHT resulting in even more disruption and needless drama. As it happens, discretionary sanctions following the WP:ARBIND ruling cannot be applied on Faizhaider because he was not notified of this possible type of enforcement while editing the article. While a block would be justified for edit warring I would like to seek a solution that may last longer than some two or three days. I therefore propose a topic ban as follows: For the period of one month, Faizhaider must neither add nor remove the Urdu language at any articles concerning topics of India broadly construed. This discussion serves as notification for discretionary sanctions in the ARBIND case enabling further action. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposer. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per De728631's proposal. Thomas.W ^talk 21:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@De728631:, @Thomas.W: I'm not sure if you have seen recent conversation on Talk:Andhra Pradesh, but the situation seems to be more cooled-off and clear than 24 hrs ago as it is now clear from various sources that the confusion is not only at WP but it even engulfs legislators of AP. I'm sorry for miopic view & stand but I felt that long standing information on article was being removed (without any comment summary) in absence of any hard proof (may be due to POV push & bias). Now we have reached consensus to maintain status-quo on the article. So, I'll ask for reconsideration of topic ban.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:41, 12 August 2014 (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 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.

---

Visakha veera

Visaka veera has probably overreacted in the recent dispute with Faizhaider but seeing this unblock request I fear he is simply walking the same road as Faizhaider, namely arguing ad nauseam that his sources are the one and only truth while playing down the issue that led to his block. This makes me agree with Judasfax and TParis that Vv's retraction of the legal threat may not at all be sincere. Provided that the indefinite block of Visaka veera is lifted following his latest request or within four weeks from now I propose a topic ban of the same nature as the one for Faizhaider: For one month after his being unblocked, Visaka veera must neither add nor remove the Urdu language at any articles concerning topics of India broadly construed. Any failure to abide by this restriction or will result in an indefinite block per WP:ARBIND sanctions. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposer. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per De728631's proposal. Thomas.W ^talk 21:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support and additionally propose that even an hint of a legal threat elsewhere result in an indefinite block. AlanS (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2014 (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.

Closure request

Would an admin assess the consensus in this discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:28, 23 August 2014 (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.

Lulz

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.

---

• Al Killu (talk · contribs)
• Freakdude420 (talk · contribs)
• I Cum On! (talk · contribs)
• Spank My Willy! (talk · contribs)

A minor irritant needs attention—no, WP:AIV is not the right place. Probably should semi the articles these accounts are attacking until they get bored. Johnuniq (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

More:

• Slimy Snake (talk · contribs)
• Thrashman420 (talk · contribs)

Would someone please indef these accounts (it's probably one person) and semi the articles (see Y2Killer (talk · contribs) who is already indeffed). Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2014 (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:46.229.193.141

Hi, I need some administrator intervention, according to the manual of style, we are not a programming guide, I have tried to remove any information that violates policy is wikipedia, but all it does ip is reverse my edits without any reason, and in my edit summary've clearly put, because I have removed this information.

Here I give some links: La impostora, I'm talking about this. If you look at the contributions of the ip, they will realize that all it does is revertirme without explanation. I do not want to violate the rule of the 3 reversals, so I'm asking for help because they do not know.

Ohter articles:

1. Mentir para Vivir: Revision history
2. Rosa diamante: Revision history
3. The House Next Door (telenovela): Revision history
4. Corazón valiente: Revision history
5. Santa Diabla: Revision history

There are many more items where the same thing is happening, I have not left any messages since the user; perhaps ignore, really do not know what to do. If they could protect the items or something.--Damián (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

User Songfans repeatedly blanking content related to Song Zuying's alleged affair with Jiang Zemin

User:Songfans has repeatedly blanked the section covering Song Zuying's alleged affair with Jiang Zemin over the course of several months, despite consensus having been reached in a BLP review on what was acceptable to say about it (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive198#Song_Zuying ). They have never engaged in discussion, despite having been invited to on multiple occasions and do not give the reason for their repeated section-blanking. The same pattern of editing is seen from the same editor over at CN-wiki. This pattern of editing has become tiresome in the extreme, with multiple editors having to take time to revert the unexplained section-blanking. FOARP (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It's understandable. That section is still a BLP-dodgy bit of reported tabloid rumours. The editor in question has tried to remove it at a rate of twice a month which is hardly a 3RR problem. The "consensus" on the BLP noticeboard that you point to is that the material probably shouldn't be included, that it was "trash" etc. After consideration of the whole "consensus" you supplied and not just my own contribution, I'm going to blank that section myself now until someone proposes on the talk page how it can be rewritten in a way that deals with User:Herostratus and User:Sean.hoyland's reasonable BLP-based objections.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I re-opened a discussion on the BLP noticeboard so that any concerns about BLP can be reviewed by uninvolved editors.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Taipei

A couple of days ago I was told to apply RBI to odd nationalistic edits being made to Taipei and other pages. It's not helping. 74.3.6.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is insistent that I'm a communist hacker from Shanghai because I'm reverting his clearly stated ROC nationalism. Can someone block him ASAP?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, to be honest I'm skipping the "I" bit because I tried to open a line of dialog and I can't do the "B" bit because I'm not an admin, so I guess it's just "R".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

IP-in-question, has been blocked. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

He's on 2600:1012:B013:F751:4478:5FB9:122E:49B7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

So, after all this happened, Fcsong (talk · contribs) came along to restore the problematic wording, after which the page was fully protected. I've since discovered that the bulk of Fcsong's edits are to institute a similar nationalistic view point on the political status of Taiwan by persistently replacing "Taiwan" with just "Republic of China" and "ROC" even on articles that use Taiwan or a variation. Fcsong should probably be blocked as a completely separate nationalist POV pusher.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for exclusive POV editing. too obvious to need discussion. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well now Taipei is on a m:wrong version after Fcsong's POV pushing turned it into an edit war.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The guy is back after having gone to an old IP he was using: 64.134.235.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

And again after I posted that he was back on 97.93.110.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 2600:1012:B002:A5E0:D45F:5428:3DDE:D1FE (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), with the latter's vandalism to Beijing untouched for nearly 12 hours.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I have just discovered that one of the previous IPs that was used by this individual got tagged as a possible sockpuppet of the indef-blocked user ProfessorJane (talk · contribs).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

He's back already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I was going to protect Beijing due to the persistent socking, however Salvidrim! beat me to it.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

184.4.123.171

Hi

I thought this had been done already but can we get talk page access of the above wp:sock revoked please, their blanking their talk page (again). Amortias (T)(C) 19:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

They've flat out admitted there socking [31]Amortias (T)(C) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Revoked talk page access. They may be admitting to socking or trying to get someone else's account in trouble.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by single-purpose account

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: Parisking147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account that is continually removing sourced details from the article Stedman Pearson. The account first became active in June 2014, and since then has removed the same details from the article at least ten times for no valid reason (details are well sourced and there is no BLP issue as per WP:WELLKNOWN). Several editors have restored the details only for Parisking147 to remove it again. There's no actual 3RR (yet) but the account has removed the same section five times in the past week alone. I was about to leave a warning message on their talk page but it seems they have already had four warnings in the past week. An obvious refusal to engage in discussion or abide by rules suggests the account should be blocked. Soultruck (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. Left a comment on their talk page inviting them to communicate their concerns, although the material they've been removing seems to be by all measures appropriate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:57, 18 August 2014 (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.

Some assistance required over at TfD

I've been reluctant to post anything here, since I consider myself capable of taking care of myself, but the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_13#Template:Lang-en-GB has become somewhat toxic.

I expressed an opinion that this group of templates didn't seem necessary, and should be deleted as they are simply the sort of thing that turns off novice users. I don't consider this to be a controversial statement (although User:Peter coxhead helpfully explained later that the templates are helpful), or something that I ought to have known would give offense. I'm entitled to the opinion, others are entitled to disagree. Nonetheless, User:SMcCandlish has unleashed a steady stream of fairly aggressive accusations and insults against me. Among other things, he described my position in his edit summary as "melodramatic noise" and accused me of abuse and creating "psychodramas" (see this edit). He then called my opinion "position-pushing drama" and described me as being on a high horse (this edit), and he subsequently mocked my refusal to engage with him. Most baffling (and what prompted this request), he is now saying that I am "patent[ly] abus[ing]" the TfD process by "attacking" the templates as some sort of a "trial balloon, for larger, more general anti-"technocracy" campaign". I don't know what he is talking about. I have no campaign in mind. In the years I have been on Wikipedia, I could count the number of times I have participated in TfD discussions on one hand. It's not an arena where I participate, let alone launch trial balloons and campaigns.

SMcCandlish has been similarly aggressive towards other users who have supported deletion of the templates.

I don't believe that I have ever encountered SMcCandlish before, so it's not as if we have a history, and I certainly do not have any history at TfD. I should be able to express an opinion, and while SMcCandlish can strongly disagree if he so chooses, this level of abuse and impugning of my motives would seem to be inappropriate.

I am also receptive to any comments about my own behaviour. Perhaps, when I refused to engage, I ought not to have asked him to review WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY. Perhaps I was poking the bear, so to speak. I don't know. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you requesting some sort of admin action at this noticeboard? I see two editors who were both being uncivil, but nothing that warrants a block or a topic-ban. Yes, you were being confrontational (poking the bear). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Mostly just asking an admin or experienced user to put a stop to the behaviour. I have no interest in blocking or banning. If you think I brought it on myself, then okay. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you're not the only person he's speaking with less than civilly in that discussion. He's being, to say the least, incivil and condescending to anyone that disagrees. I'd suggest an admin have a word with him. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to quote SMcCandlish who outlines it perfectly: "Instead of claiming aggrievement at being challenged on something, why not actually respond substantively to the challenge". Challenging your opinion is not being uncivil. Accusing someone of being uncivil for challenging your opinion is.--v/r - TP 18:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, T, I don't mind someone challenging my opinion (as is quite evident in this discussion when User:Peter coxhead explained that I misconceived the benefit of the template). Describing my opinion as melodramatic noise, and accusing me of abuse, psychodrama, and of having ulterior motives, is not "challenging my opinion". I am happy to respond substantively to people who question my opinion, even forcefully, but most of SMcCandlish's comments to me were not substantive. And I don't think any editor should be taken to task for not attempting to address any substantive points with SMcCandlish when faced with that torrent of abuse. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you possibly be any more hyperbolic, Skeezix1000? "Torrent of abuse"? Please. I didn't "accuse" you of any ulterior motives, and making observations about misuing TfD to advance general "templates are a technocracy" WP:SOAPBOX advocacy or engaging in WP:DRAMA tactics, as you continue to do right here, aren't "accusations" either, but simply obseravations of actions and how they related to standard operating procedure around here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree. He's not just acting incivil to Skeezix1000, he's also acting that way to SweetNightmares, Resolute (a sysop) and George Ho. He really needs to calm down in that discussion. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 18:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll address most of this below. SweetNightmares and George Ho are involved in a disagreement with me, and Ho at least admits he also needs to cool off about it (while simultaneously escalating...). Having a discussion with Resolute about the definition of a word isn't "acting incivil", and Resolute being an admin doesn't magically mean everyone has to agree with that editor on everything.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement of SMcCandlish: The complainant, Skeezix1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has unclean hands in this:

Proof

Insult: "When you are ... ready to discuss like a grown-up, please let me know. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[32] (also calls any criticism and "accusation"; implications of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF violations where none are actually occurring itself violates these principles and can be considered disruptive as well). Pretense it wasn't an insult, labeling every criticism an "accusation" again, and declaring refusal to use TfD normally until he gets what he wants: [33] Note that these histrionics follow after Skeezix1000 specifically wrote "Maybe I am missing something (and please tell me if I am)".[34] Skeezix1000 directly invited constructive criticism, and then blew up when he received some. (This edit, in other sentences, also labels others' template work "crappy", itself incivil, as it's just a denigration without providing any logical reason for the templates' alleged shittiness, which that's a euphemism for, and it consist mostly of a hyberbolic rant blaming language metadata templates he doesn't understand the use or purpose of, for "Wikipedia ... having trouble keeping and attracting editors -- everything is becoming so damn overly-technical, including the use of templates instead of simple wikilinks." This is both a WP:COMPETENCE problem and as I've tried to explain many times to him (and to a couple of others in the same debate), TfD is not the place to push an anti-template and/or anti-metadata WP:SOAPBOX/WP:ADVOCACY/WP:GREATWRONGS wikipolitical position. Only one of the three understood this and took the matter to WT:NOT for a policy discussion (hint: Skeezix1000 wasn't that editor).

Furthermore, I'm not being "incivil and condescending to anyone that disagrees" (proof: [35][36]), I'm being critical of WP:FAITACCOMPLI actions to delete all the templates' uses in situ to make them seem unused, TfD arguments not grounded in policy, and the incivility of others.

Big pile of evidence:

"The more we ignore you, techno-nerd, the better. End of story. --George Ho (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)"[37] (that's an actual personal attack, not just a civility problem). "This discussion is starting to heat up, and I don't see signs of cooling down yet.... I cannot withdraw all the nominations I have done here just because of your conflicts with others ... if you can count.... I read your bio in user page, and I think you may have another COI here..... --George Ho (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)"[38] (his idea of cooling down is throwing in an intelligence insult, and following it with an inexplicable accusation of not one but multiple WP:COI issues? Note also the insinuation that I have no valid points, only "conflicts", and that these are why he doesn't withdraw the pointy TfD nominations.) The advancement of a "technocracy" conspiracy theory (as well as a more reasoned but offtopic-at-TfD policy change idea about templates being overly complicated, which these in particular are not): Skeezix1000 already quoted immediately above blaming metadata for all of WP's woes; "Let's stop turning this website into a technocracy. - SweetNightmares 14:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)"[39]; "too technocratic to be useful. - SweetNightmares 15:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)"[40]; "too technocratic. - SweetNightmares 15:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)"[41]; "I brought up the "technocracy" issue in WT:NOT, so join there if interested. Must we rely on templates rather than easy spelling? --George Ho (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)" (to George's credit, at least he's trying to move their "templates are technocracy" stuff to a more appropriate forum). Calling template editors "technocrats" and their work "technoratic" is simply a personal attack and an assumption of bad faith, like calling them fascists or communists. Previous AN/I and AE decisions have clearly held that maligning an entire group or class of editors rather individual ones by name still constitutes a personal attack per WP:NPA. Note also that this really is the nominator of these templates questioning the utility of templates generally, not raising legitimate issues with these particular templates: "I have been questioning usefulness of templates lately. ... Somehow, template-fanatics oppose deletion on any kind .... People are expected to be computer scientists or engineers, especially on templates. ... Editors are also expected to be experienced and quick-learners on templates. Sometimes, learning unnecessary and complex templates is frustrating.... --George Ho (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)"[42] (note the not-really-veiled personal attack on template editors general (and perhaps in this TfD specifically - some elided text seems to unclearly refer to it) as "template-fanatics" [sic] who "oppose deletion [of] any kind", which is a lie. Note also the false implication that anyone is required to use this or any other template.)[43] It gets worse: "there exist tech-savvy users who take pride for one reason or another in being more Wiki-literate than others, and who prize convoluted templates and other features of Wiki markup over simplicity and streamlining.... - SweetNightmares 00:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}[44] (This continues with a blatant "cabal" conspiracy theory about WP policymaking, yet this editor says I'm making false accusations about advancing conspiracy theories. Note also the gross bad faith accusation against a whole class of WP editors.) This relates to this earlier comment at the TfD: "I nominated, you voted, and others voted already. You favor keeping it for future computer experts; I favor getting rid of it and making everything simple and neat. --George Ho (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)"[45] (i.e., it's about getting rid of templates, not dealing with any problem raised by these particular templates. How much worse does it get? George Ho is engaging in disruption with regard to language templates more broadly (and been warned by admin Joy [shallot] for it, including {{lang-de-AT}}, for example. See User talk:George Ho#Re: template:lang-de-AT and start from there. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#Template:lang-de/sandbox, where it becomes clear that Ho's immediate mission is going after all templates of the form {{lang-xx-YY}}, not just the English ones. These TfDs are part of some kind of campaign. More from SweetNightmares (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in response to me challenging their pejorative use of "technocracy", noting that WP:FAITACCOMPLI changes were being made, and noting that lack of a policy-based rationale rendered their !vote questionable: I get mischaracterized as "Resorting to passive-aggressiveness, condescension, and personal attacks"[46] (Criticism often looks like condescension to the criticized. I'm never passive aggressive – my main criticism on Wikipedia is that I'm overly direct and curmudgeonly – and one can't make a sane case that I'm being overtly aggressive (again, criticism and demands for rationales are not an attack) yet also somehow passive about it; SweetNightmares, get your story straight. In the same edit, SweetNightmares blames me personally for WP's editor retention problem. And then jumps on me about what was a perfectly valid WP:REFACTOR edit to fix a cross-references. I.e., it's all just a confused pile of whatever ill will SweetNightmares can come up with at that moment to vent in my face about, all without substantively addressing anything at all. I'm doubting I'm the one with the most clear temperament issue here.) Then comes this "bend over backwards to refuse to understand" exercise in WP:IDHT by someone else.[47]

Now comes a concerted, disruptive form of WP:AGF/WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA-violative WP:CANVASSING, in which George Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is campaigning all participants at the TfDs in question to refuse to respond to me: [48][49] I ask administrative intervention to revert this and to prevent this editor from continuing to do this. (User:Joy seems like the most appropriate, having warned this editor about behavior relating to these templates already.)

I could go on, but this is enough evidence of what's happening over there, and I don't want to be thought of as posting a "text wall". Per the WP:DUCK and WP:SPADE analyses, I have to observe that this looks to be a WP:FACTION, a trio of editors all convinced that templates they don't understand or don't like, even all templates in general, are part of a Borg-like technocracy lording it over WP. All three of them used "technocrat", "technocratic" or "technocracy" in this debate, reiterate each others' arguments, and are colluding[50] (including making more personal attacks on me, which perhaps they think are immune because they avoid naming me explicitly.[51]

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry Skeezix, but you raised a pretty questionable non-sequitur with your "No wonder Wikipedia is having trouble keeping and attracting editors" comment, and SMcCandlish, despite his flaws, one of which is a lack of tact in calling out your flawed arguments, was completely within his rights to demand evidence for this spurious claim. Both you and Nightmare were in the wrong long before SMcCandlish came close to any sort of boundary, and the only actual personal attack was made by George Ho - "The more we ignore you, techno-nerd, the better". I'm actually quite disappointed; George knows better than to call people names. VanIsaac_WS^cont 23:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I stroke the insult in that page. Per WP:NPA, you can strike whatever you think is a personal insult and then cite that policy. I should not have done insults. Despite striking and erasing them, I could be blocked for this. Well, we all involved parties were guilty of attacking each other, and I was trying to cool down. However, I shouldn't have made SMcCandlish a sole culprit. I was too cowardly to admit that others were also to blame (unless I'm proven wrong). I failed to advise civility and tell ourselves to admit responsibility at the same time. However, I stand by my nominations, and I cannot withdraw at this time... because of mixed votes and discussion (sans heat-up comments). Look, I knew how templates work, but my level of knowledge isn't very good; it's average (or a little above). And I'm a techno-amateur; period. As for the other non-English "lang" templates, how was I canvassing? If I was canvassing against templates, tell me an advice to follow. --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly not asking that anyone be blocked. No one should be blocked for an off-the-cuff intemperate remark (and I even have a crew of "negative followers" who habitually personally attack me, in multiple forums, yet I don't seek them being blocked, either, or even bother bringing them to ANI or AE about it; WP is far too litigious as it is, and noticeboards are better used for content-related (WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc.) problem resolution, not putting balm on bruised egos). No one has asked George Ho to withdraw any TfD nominations, and doing so at this point would be out-of-process, as they already have substantial pro and con comments. I would like to see removal of George Ho's canvassing, of participants in these TfDs to ignore me personally, to be removed; they amount to a campaign to get everyone to only pay heed to him and his allies against these templates, as well as being personal denigration of my input. I think I'd be within WP:NPA to remove them myself, but I'd rather see Ho self-revert, or have it done administratively, to avoid someone being WP:POINTy and simply reverting their removal (I've already had one Ho's friends on this issue revert even the simplest refactoring of cross-references, so revertwarring is not an idle concern). No one has suggested any other form of canvassing has happened, including at other, non-English lang-xx templates (I earlier did observe that Ho had been warned by an admin about disruptive ultimatum behavior with regard to one of them, and that his goals in that debate reflect a general antagonism toward all the {{lang-xx-YY}} templates, but that's nothing to do with the canvassing-against-one's-opposition problem at these particular TfDs).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

George Ho struck the other, canvassy posts at issue. I also moderated the tone of several of my posts there. Everyone will hopefully be happy now. I also clarfied that my diffing (which I did over there as well as here) isn't meant to pick on George, but to identify just how far-flung this octopus of a discussion is and make it clear that the TfDs are just part of something large that needs to be addressed more broadly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

PS: On closer review, I think there actually is a canvassing problem here, of the WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:PARENT sort (not to direct people to these TfDs; rather the TfDs are the latest in his series of "how many forums can I bring this up in at once and hope I get an answer I like?" shotgun approach. Ho has raised some variant of his position against language variant templates (in German, English, etc.) in at least all of the following places, and I haven't looked very hard:

• Five separate TfDs at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 13 (obviously)
• Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#"Wikipedia is not a technocracy"? (as an example of his and SweetNighmares's broader campaign against templates more generally)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Using "lang-x" template or simple wikilinking and formatting
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#Template:lang-de/sandbox
• Template talk:Lang-de#template:lang-de-AT

I'm simply going to cross-reference these discussions with links between them. Ho should be admonished not to do this sort of thing (we should centralize discussions, not fragment them in hopes of getting a specific result from one of them, or just out of carelessness), but that's probably enough.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I think everyone involved needs to cool off. I'm a big fan of templates, but even I can't manage to get myself worked up over this drama. George should stick to one place where he airs his views on templates, and SMcC should avoid badgering George. Then we can all go back to arguing about Russavia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Noted. I refactored much of my commentary there to either moderate the tone or to outright "hat" (with {{collapse top}}) both my less temperate remarks and the venty off-TfD-topic responses they generated. A day later this refactoring has stuck, so can we close this? Teh dramas are over. Except about Russavia. I don't know what that is, and am probably glad.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat by 137.71.116.54

137.71.116.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) stated in edit summary I put the true link. If you remove it again I will sue you!!!. Seems to want to put tabloid quality comments in the lede of Sharon Cuneta Jim1138 (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Also made unconstructive edit to Miss Earth 2014 here "Youporn"? Jim1138 (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, primarily for vandalism (Youporn, etc.), editwarring and BLP violations. The legal threat is just plain silly. Acroterion (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Multiple Hoaxes

Hi. Hope this is the right place. User Minioletroj has been creating hoax articles of non existent footballers. If you look at their talk page there are a number of deletion notifications. I am not sure what the criteria are before blocking someone but can someone see if they merit a block? Gbawden (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wayne Watkins is not a hoax, just a very poorly written article about someone potentially non-notable. See Google for evidence he exists. GiantSnowman 12:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

My bad. I had earlier CSD'd one that was definitely a hoax and saw that Wayne Watkins was using similar references. My apologies Gbawden (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikihounding by Range of IP's

There appears to be a range of IP's that is stalking me: 59.97.32.195 and 59.97.33.91. I'm not sure if they're the same editor, but they seem to be working together to avoid the 3RR rule. In addition, based on this report, it appears that the IP's may have a history of dodgy activity. Can someone please assist? Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake. I'm a regular (if sporadic) editor interested in US politics. I've edited from a bunch of IPs over the years, that I don't remember most of (any reason I should?) but I have never attempted to pretend that I am more than one person, or anything of the kind. Yes, I travel frequently, and when I do I edit from public computers; which is probably why I overlapped with an online troll at some point (as you can see, that report is a few months old). TLDR; show me one policy that I have violated (sure, I hit 3RR just now, but so did you). And I am not the one with 4 ANEW reports in a few days, only one of which I authored......59.97.33.91 (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, the excuse from the IP is weak. The correct answer is to create an account. instead of hiding behind multiple IPs, and edit from any available computer. David J Johnson (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed the entire paragraph and raised the issue at WP:BLPN#John Kline (politician). There is at least one SPA with an interest in keeping the attack in the article, so it will need watching. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• CFredkin doesn't come here with clean hands. Their editing of politicians' biographies is tendentious, with a lot of edit warring in the past few days. Speaking for myself, I've only just refrained from blocking them recently, and purely because others were edit warring also (though less egregiously), see theseAN3 sections. But that said, I completely agree with David J Johnson that the sight of an anonymous IP-hopper edit warring is unedifying. 59.97.33.91, anonymous editing is allowed, yes, but when the IPs are highly dynamic and the editing is controversial, it's not respectable. Not all disruption violates some policy. You have no consistent user talkpage, so it's not worth while trying to communicate with you. You're unwarnable and pretty much unblockable. Please see Wikipedia:Why create an account?: While we welcome contributions from unregistered editors, logging in under a User Name lets you build trust and respect through a history of good edits, and makes it easier for veteran users to assume good faith, communicate and collaborate. My italics. If there's any more edit warring from you from fluctuating IPs (and I'm not talking about breaching 3RR, necessarily), I'll block your range. This is your only warning; it hardly seems worth while sticking it on one of "your" talkpages. Bishonen | talk 10:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC).

Warning accepted, but I still decline to create an account. Is it "disreputable?" Perhaps; so is having four blocks, and four ANEW reports in a day. I can recognize your problem with warnings and blocks and such; but can you find me actions of mine prior to today that warranted warnings or blocks? Probably not, because until I came across this tendentious character (seriously, he still insists that a particular sentence does not exist in a source) I was scrupulous about reverting, essentially obeying a self-imposed 1RR. I have never breached 3RR (as an individual; I don't keep track of my IPs). And I might as well let you know, blocking a range will not be very helpful; these are public IPs. 59.97.33.91 (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

And I am still amazed at how many "red-line" breaches CFredkin made over the past day, and got away scot-free with all of them; and here I am dragged to the drama board just for following the letter of the law. 59.97.33.91 (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You're kidding. How am I supposed to know if there are "actions of yours prior to today that warranted warnings or blocks"? That's the whole point. You have no history. Bishonen | talk 11:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC).

• You're right, Mr/Mrs IP; they're being rather disruptive right now. The problem is - you might be just as disruptive, but since we cannot easily review every single edit that you personally have made, we cannot tell. We therefore cannot take you seriously. We therefore are starting to have to assume the worst, instead of assuming the best. You seem to be ok pointing fingers, but we cannot verify how clean your hands are, and that's simply reducing your argument, unfortunately. So yes, you're welcome to edit without an account - but very soon, the threshold for action against you will become lower, as we'll have to assume a not-so-pleasant history. the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• There have been two or three redlink users edit-warring with Fredkin since the start of August, including the original posting of the contentious material citing Bill Maher.[52] There's pretty obviously an agenda being pushed. (And how any rep could be "worse" than Bachmann is hard to imagine, but that's a side issue.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I am unclear as to the precise tools that Check Users have, but I was under the impression that negative evidence (ie confirming unrelated) was easy to come by (especially when, as I suspect, we are currently in different countries). I have never edited with an account; but I guess you only have my word for that. Regardless, I'm not sure where this thread is going. I will promise (of course) to abide by policy, which IMO I have done all along. I was perhaps a little carried away today, but if any of you had ever tried to handle content disputes with CFredkin, I think you would sympathize. They violated 3RR twice in a day, and got away, both times, even with a block log like theirs. I wish to maintain my anonymity as far as I can, and I will not get an account. Can this thread be closed now? 59.97.33.91 (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: CheckUser, see [53]. --92.4.168.193 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It's rather disingenuous to say that the IP is pushing an agenda without noting that the reporting party is also pushing an agenda. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• @EatsShootsAndLeaves, Bishonen, and David J Johnson: Folks - editing as an IP is not a crime here - in fact, it's what we were founded on. Let's not forget that. We can review the IP's contributions here by assuming them mostly edit in this range.--v/r - TP 17:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No-one has said it's a crime. Just a little dishonest to keep editing under different IP's. Far better to create an account, so everyone knows the contributions are from the same person. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not a realistic answer. The IP is obviously dynamic and the user has no control over the IP they use. They could be on dial up, their ISP could have a short reservation time for IPs, or a host of other reasons their IP is changing without their control. Accusing them of being dishonest over something that is not within their control is really not appropriate at all. The IP originates in India, you cannot hold them to the standards you'd expect from an American or British ISP.--v/r - TP 18:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

They DO have control over owning up to their past. If they can't be bothered to reveal their "trail", then there's no reason anyone should be bothered to listen to their complaints. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is that written in policy? Do you keep track of your home IPs? Where does it say in policy that we treat IPs as any less of a person if they do not keep a running list of their edits? You have the range contribs right there - review them. Those are the tools we have available. Faking ignorance for the sake of biting an IP is dishonest of us and we can do better. Here is the tool. All arguments about 'not knowing', 'avoiding scrutiny', and 'edit trail' are rendered null by the existence of this link.--v/r - TP 22:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

My IP seldom changes, but I don't edit from my IP anyway. If an IP-hopper expects to be treated with good faith, he needs to demonstrate some. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

They are not an "IP-hopper". They are an "I-have-no-control-over-my-ip-er". This is essentially systematic nationalistic discrimination - not intentional on anyone's part. But our system is designed to be suspicious of changing IP addresses and that suspicion is based on ISPs in 1st world countries which can be depended on to be fairly regular. This IP lives in a 3rd world country and doesn't not benefit from that kind of system. We cannot judge an IP from a 3rd world country the same as one from a 1st world country.--v/r - TP 01:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It bothers me that someone editing under an ip address is automatically assumed to be disruptive even though there is no evidence of disruption or abuse. However, it seems as if this issue is easily resolved if the editor decides to register an account, a process that takes only a minute and does not even require an email address. Alicb (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Russavia disruption, requesting multiple article protection

Banned user Russavia has been editing Wikipedia at a dozen articles, using multiple proxies. To prevent this kind of disruption, I would like the following articles and pages to be given temporary semi-protection:

• Wikipedia:Files for upload
• Líneas Aéreas Suramericanas
• Dassault Falcon 7X
• Juan Falconí Puig
• Mauricio Rodríguez Múnera
• SAEREO
• Martinair
• Icaro Air
• TAME
• Copa Airlines Colombia

There's even a bit of disruption from Russavia at WP:RPP, ironically, with the guy saying "fuck off binksternet" for good measure.
I know I'm supposed to notify a user who I am discussing at ANI but this guy is using throwaway proxies, and he clearly knows what is going on around here. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protecting WP:FFU would be counter productive, as new users and IP'a are the people who are meant to use it to request uploads.... --Mdann52talk to me! 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: is now semi-protected for 3 days. How will IP editors be able to request files to be uploaded during this time? 122.52.157.88 (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Gfoley4: Please consider unprotecting WP:FFU. Lots of IPs request files for upload and they need to be able to continue doing this. As an example, I took a look at the first 20 requests at Wikipedia:Files for upload/August 2014, and out of those, 20% had been placed by an IP. The remaining 80% requests were made by users with accounts, but presumably some of them weren't autoconfirmed yet. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Page protection might be acceptable, but this blanket reverting of IP edits (not even confirmed yet by a CU to be a ban evading sock) really isn't good - every edit reverted by Binksternet has been a good edit that improved each and every article, it just seems to be such a monumental waste of time and effort for all concerned to go around reverting edits, then someone else following behind re-reverting so as to 'take responsibility' for the edit.

There has to be a better long term solution than this endless nonsense, surely. Nick (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Good edits or not, Russavia is banned from editing. IP 85.234.141.185 doesn't need a CU, Russavia admitted using it. Mjroots (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If the edits were made by an editor other than Russavia, would there be an issue with any of them? Tarc (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If the other editor was also banned, then yes. - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not the question. Imagine that I were making them while logged out, saying who I was, and giving a good reason for being logged out: would there be an issue with any of them? Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You're not banned, so clearly no. :) That wouldn't be an issue. - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Tarc was simply attempting to address the content of the edits themselves, regardless of who made them. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand what Tarc was trying to do, but in this case, who made the edits is the important issue, not the quality of the edits. Banned editors are no longer welcome to contribute to the project, especially when they continue to use socks and IPs to evade the community ban. - Bilby (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Who makes the edits is important if you are interested in playing a MMORPG. But Wikipedia is not a MMORPG. It's an encyclopaedia. Apparently. It should be noted that Bilby stalked my Commons uploads and created a two line stub at Lena Nyadbi to prevent me from creating it. Rather than preventing me from creating it, I expanded it. So question, do you think readers really give a fuck who created the content? People need to take their heads out of their arse and seriously answer that question. 213.55.112.138 (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

An editor who is banned may not contribute to Wikipedia. Period. It does not matter if their contribution was constructive or not, banned means banned. Quoting Wikipedia:Banning policy: The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. (emphasis in original). It doesn't matter if edits by a banned editor are creating a Featured Article from scratch - they are still banned, and the edits are unacceptable. If they want to contribute, they need to convince the community and/or Arbcom to lift the ban, then edit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Why should Russavia (if it's him) be allowed to evade his ban? What makes him so special? If it is him, then he should be getting his head out of his 'you know what' & stay away. Again, I had to serve my time. GoodDay (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with The Bushranger. GoodDay is an example that a ban need not be forever. If Russavia want to return to the community, then he needs to prove to the community that he should be unbanned. Socking through multiple proxy IPs is not the way to go about this. Mjroots (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies for a reason and that is to provide a space for people to edit in relative harmony. There'll be disagreements and what not but for the most part the policies do work and things progress towards the encyclopedia we work towards. Banning an editor from WP is saying "you're not welcome here anymore as you have chosen not to abide by the rules that the community has created". If we then turn around and say "yeah, but they're doing good work! Why undo it?" basically pulls all of the fangs from policy. When any of us chose to become an editor here, we agreed to abide by the guidelines and policies of WP. Russavia, your argument that the reader will not care who wrote it is a red herring. The readership is one community and separate from the editorial community only overlapping when a reader becomes an editor. Your refusal to abide by the community's decisions and policies has resulted in your being ejected from WP, this is on you. Blackmane (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my question from last night was getting to the matter of the quality/content of the edits. If the content is good, and the edit is not pushing a particular POV, e.g.. in contravention of an Israel-Palesine or climate change ban or the like, then it is the height of childishness to revert just because of the person behind the revealed sock. This, I'm sorry, is a dick move; it was just a photo being placed into an article. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc:, you seem to be missing the point here. That was an edit that any editor in good standing was entitled to make. Russavia is not an editor in good standing, and is not entitled to make any edits on en-Wiki. roolz is roolz, if you dont have roolz, what do you end up with? anarchy!. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Banned editors can edit. If they create a sock and stay away from the behavior/articles that will get them caught then obviously we have no way of identifying them. That's how they can participate. Against the roolz but there's only so much you can do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Lol, "rules are rules" is what pencil-pushing government automatons would say. Strive to be more creative than the average IRS auditor or post office worker. If I see an edit reverted simply because of who it is, I'll simply reverse it and take ownership of it myself. You can ban the account, we'll still have an improved article, and everyone can be happy. Tarc (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If ya wanna restore edits made by banned/blocked editors, that's your choice. Hopefully, it's not gonna encourage sock-puppetry. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"If ya wanna restore good edits..." is what you mean. I don't see any problem with getting banned users to do good work. It's the bad edits that we don't want, and a banned user attempting to stay under the radar and still edit Wikipedia won't stick his head up to be caught. Isn't that right, GoodDay? --Pete (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I've never socked, Skyring. I didn't sock during the times I was blocked & didn't sock when I was banned. Why? Because those are the rules. I faithfully served my ban, so there's no reason why Russavia (or anyone else) can't. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I've always found it odd that some people will wait for the green man when it's two in the morning and the street is deserted. If "rules are rules" and the leaders of the Thirteen Colonies had taken that view, then the world would be a different place. Likewise if Nazi Germany had paid less attention to rules. Turning a blind eye to good edits by banned users serves two purposes. First, it improves the encyclopaedia. Second, if they are doing it to get noticed and cause people to run around with their heads off, then ignoring that behaviour keeps the project tranquil. If no harm is being caused, then where's the problem? Why make a fuss? Keep an eye on them by all means, but lean back, pour yourself a cold one and take a break while someone else does the work. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Invoking Godwin's Law is certainly an excellent way to come across as rational on a topic... Also, lets face reality. This isn't about improving Wikipedia for Russavia. This is all about his ego, and his desire to feel like he's better/more important than others. We do more to improve this project by RBI'ing him than we do indulging what amounts to a long-running temper tantrum. Resolute 23:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Just quietly, but the phrase "Invoking Godwin's Law" doesn't mean what you think it does, Reso. Think about it. --Pete (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest if editors want good edits made by sockpuppets of blocked or banned editors to not be reverted, then they should seek a changing of the rules, at Village Pump. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You're not listening. It's not about the rules. The answer was given above - any editor can take a good edit as their own. That's just common sense. Do you really need to look at a rulebook to decide if an edit is vandalism or not? --Pete (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You're not listening. The edit is invalid if made by a sockpuppet & therefore should be reverted. Why bother banning or blocking anyone, if we choose to allow their 'good' edits? With all due respect, you & I are on different trains of thought here & so it's best we discontinue the discussion. Resolute is correct, Russavia is likely getting his jollies at this moment. GoodDay (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it not supposed to be punitive though? Kirothereaper (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Editors are not blocked for their good edits. It's the less-than-good behaviour we discourage. As for getting jollies, there's a lot of fun to be had as a blocked editor in seeing other editors, of a particular anal bent, jumping about reverting good edits to the puzzlement of everyone else. Just turning a blind eye, ignoring trolls, is more productive than dancing to socks. --Pete (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, editors are not (supposed to be) blocked for good edits... I would go as far as to say that anyone who goes to any length to revert unambiguously good edits of banned or blocked users is in serious danger of breaking WP:POINT. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC).

I think that if you wish to take this stance, you may need to try and get WP:BAN changed - "Bans apply to all editing, good or bad ... The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good." Although to clarify, we don't block for good edits - we block for ban evasion. - Bilby (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A blocked/banned editor can create as much disruption as they want with a little creativity. Over-zealous attachment to trivial rules brings its own vulnerabilities. Those wishing to game the system and feeling they have nothing to lose aren't going to react well to rulemongers. --Pete (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a similar tangent to the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#If_I_may.... mini-brouhaha below; at what point can an editor in good standing take the reverted work of an editor in (sometimes allegedly) bad standing and call it their own? Tarc (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

In terms of content, immediately. If any of Russavia's edits are reverted under WP:BAN, and an editor decides to reinstate them, then that's fine and it can't be reverted on those grounds again. I have no idea how that applies to other issues, such as comments not related to content. - Bilby (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What people are saying is that we should revert banned users' good edits and then wait for someone who isn't banned to un-revert them? which is obviously what will happen if they're constructive. sounds like bureaucracy to me. Remember that WP:IAR is policy, always has been. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  10:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have previously started a formal ban discussion, so you know where I stand. However I am taking a harder line this time, and calling for all Russavia's edits as a sock to be reverted as well. Clearly, not to do so merely encourages him. Ban him permanently, revert his sock edits and keep doing so until he admits defeat. Otherwise our rules about blocks and socking while blocked are meaningless. Do it starting now. Jusdafax 09:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but that is pathetic. I have no love for Russavia either, esp over the Pricasso mess, but you're treating the project like a blood-soaked "take no prisoners" battleground. If he uses a sock to add a Photo A to Article X, and you revert that, what then? Is everyone barred forever after from inserting A into X? Tarc (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:BMB, WP:BANREVERT, and WP:PROXYING define what is and is not allowed, with the last saying the reasons to add it must be independent from the original banned user's edits. Although every time I've seen it it was "If you revert you take full responsibility for the content of the banned user's edit" or whatever it was.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • With respect, but that's ridiculous. Using a sock to make perfectly good edits is only disruptive if someone knows it's a sock. And, apart from good detective work, the usual way to pick a sock is some consistency of style. Or if the sock makes it obvious. And if people are then jumping all over the place getting hot under the collar and waving a rulebook, the banned/blocked editor is sitting back with a smile all over his face, having achieved his end. Yes, I know that the point of banning or blocking a user is so they can't participate, but for anyone with reasonable internet skills, that is easily avoidable. Why get all stressed up over something that is simply not achievable? And all to revert good edits? That's about as POINTy as it gets. And as pointless. --Pete (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Repeatedly inserting data for the same blocked editor over and over on multiple pages goes well beyond anything intended in our policies. I suggest that Tarc simply be blocked the next time he reinserts material originating with Russavia, and that he remain blocked until he agrees to stop.—Kww(talk) 16:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

While all this is happening, Lugia2453 is battling vandalism on this userbox (and now this one) by a series of IPs in Argentina changing it into a "I support the unbanning of Russavia" and also he's getting tagged as a sockpuppet of me by the IPs. Does he normally do this or is this just some other troll?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That is, as described, not typical behavior for Russvia's socks, no. Revent^talk 22:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the IPs were going "I'm just an Argentinian" like the IP listed further below went "I'm just a Japanese".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Russavia's 'modus operandi' is to be intentionally quite blatant about his socking, not to deny it, from everything I have seen. Given his obvious ability to switch IPs at will, and given that he is almost undoubtedly also editing under 'quiet' socks, it would make little sense for him to attempt to 'justify' a particular IP as not being him. Revent^talk 22:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Can we have a little bit more common sense here? It's evident that somebody, probably Russavia, is campaign to make WP:POINTY insertions of Commons images uploaded by Russavia into any en-wiki articles where they're arguably even remotely pertinent. That's disruptive, deliberately so, and the ensuing dispute here and elsewhere is exactly the disruption that whoever's behind the IP/SPas wants. Edits like these [54] [55] [56] which add no value or negligible value to an article should be removed. However, images like these [57] [58] clearly add value to articles, fall within the exception for "clearly helpful" edits under WP:BANREVERT and the similar "productive" exception under WP:PROXYING and should be allowed to stand if restored/endorsed by a legitimate editor. Getting involved in an arcane discussion to justify removal of clearly appropriate content is just, in the long run, carrying water for Russavia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Kww:, in both this comment the one that you closed out the "If I may..."section" below, you are dead wrong; I have never taken an action to restore material edited by Russavia. However, I do feel that any such edit should be evaluated on its merits rather tan on the author. So for example at the article Dassault Falcon 7X, there's no valid reason IMO to revert the adding of that image, and it appears that Nick has restored it already. Do you plan to threaten Nick with a block? Would you threaten to block me if I had restored it? Tarc (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If Nick restores it, then it's Nick's edit. The orignal removal of the Russavia sock's edit, however, is perfectly legit and should be done, per WP:DENY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• The edit summaries for [59] and [60] are interesting - it appears that some sort of co-ordinated action is taking place on IRC. Mass semi-protection seems to be the only answer here.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Those are just Russavia again, messing with our heads - he used the same IP on June 24. Would like to know how he manages to use IPs all over the world that are not apparent proxies. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • That last IP belongs to Linode, which is a company that provides virtual private servers which for whatever reason is allocated in Japan rather than the US where Linode is based.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • @NawlinWiki: There are multiple ways that it can be done, that are not incredible obscure. Detailing the method that Russavia is most likely using, or any of the others, on the wiki would be inadvisable under WP:BEANS. Simply accypt the fact that it can be done, and that blocks and checkuser are easily evadable by anyone that is reasonably technically competent. I find it hard to believe that many, if not the majority, of blocked or banned users do not already return to editing using such measures. Revent^talk 22:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support upholding policy (WP:BANREVERT and WP:Banned means banned) by reverting edits of banned user and preventing banned user from further editing by the best means necessary, which may be page protection of target articles. If user desires reinstatement, they are well aware of WP:STANDARDOFFER. Softlavender (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Responding to Blackmane above, but I can't work out where to put it after so much back and forth. Blackmane, you said, Banning an editor from WP is saying "you're not welcome here anymore as you have chosen not to abide by the rules that the community has created". If we then turn around and say "yeah, but they're doing good work! Why undo it?" basically pulls all of the fangs from policy. I see this exact same argument used all the time to excuse editors from being blocked. "They do good work, so we can excuse them the odd tantrum. They can abuse other editors and edit-war and create disruption so long as they contribute." Now, it seems to me that we can't have it both ways. --Pete (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a slippery slope, I'll admit. I have a somewhat hardline view of things especially when it comes to policy, which would make me a rather poor admin. When I see many a good contributor go off the rails and just gets a slap on the wrist I see it as a slap in the community's face. Blackmane (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support upholding policy. We invite chaos and anarchy if we don't enforce policy against banned and/or blocked sockmasters. Revert all edits, protect articles, and in extreme cases use WMF litigation to actuate sanctions that will stop policy violators for once and for all. I would like to take note of the fact that an IP message on my talk page, presumably from the subject and challenging me to act as a policy enforcer or "shut up," was deleted recently by another editor. My response, post deletion, can be found there. Jusdafax 00:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Since the policy in question clearly states "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)", how is enforcing mandatory reversion of such edits "enforcing" the policy. It strikes me that the principles of WP:DENY provide better guidance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Jusdafax, you must have a high opinion indeed of WMF legal abilities to find and stop someone that technical measures cannot. I'm wondering just how far your "stop policy violators for once and for all" tactics would go. The Wikipedia SWAT team knocks on a door, sticks in a Kalishnikov and yells, "That was one good edit too many, motherfather!", maybe? I think you'd have a hard time convincing any judge that (say) adding well-sourced material, correcting errors and so on to an online encyclopaedia "that anyone may edit" merited any official interest. At some point, common sense comes into play, and just because there's a local consensus by some band of Wikipoos on some talk page somewhere to nuke someone who is annoying them by uploading Commons photos, it's not really something that's worth getting upset over. In fact, getting you upset is very likely the objective of the blocked/banned editor doing good work. Just to see you run around and get red in the face, or username. Ignore the trolls, always the best advice. --Pete (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    • If the day has come when asking for existing Wikipedia policy to be enforced gets shushed, then I'd say the "dumbing down" of our editorship has gone pretty far. "Upset?" Do you see any caps, or cursing on my part? I am calmly making a comment regarding a blocked serial sockmaster who, in my view, should be dealt with firmly. And take note, he went to my talk page as an IP (subsequently and rightfully blocked) to taunt me. By any objective standard, he appears to be the one who is upset. Your comment is remarkably unconvincing. Jusdafax 21:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
      • When one gets to the point of invoking the WMF legal gods, I'd say that one is more than nettled. Obviously touching a nerve. Allcaps not required. Asking for policy to be enforced by the courts - and I'm talking about good edits by a banned user here - is going further than is reasonable. IMHO. And again, in a community where one of the rules is "Ignore All Rules", just how dogmatic can one be? We don't have a community where every little rule is enforced and we seem to have done very well in our efforts. If we changed our model to one where enforcement of trivial rules was at the point of a gun, I don't think we'd do quite so well. I think people would make fun of us. --Pete (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
        • People already make fun of us. So what? The point is not that the edits by the editor are good or bad, it is that he has been told to stand down and continues to not only edit, but harass editors who, for whatever reason, he does not like or agree with. My particular skin is pretty tough, but how many people have left off editing because of this intractable and hostile blocked user. That as I see it is the issue at hand, and the core of my concern. If "ignore all rules" is the best you can offer in defense of a multiple sockmaster who taunts those with the temerity to stand up to him publicly, then our view of Wikipedia policy is irreconcilable. As for legal action, it should be pretty much a last resort. But a cease and desist court order, the virtual equivalent of restraining order, would get the attention of sockmasters worldwide. It should be, in my view, a viable tool for the WMF to use in wildly exaggerated cases. Jusdafax 22:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
          • It's not this - or any other - particular case that I'm talking about. I'm addressing your general comments above: We invite chaos and anarchy if we don't enforce policy against banned and/or blocked sockmasters. Revert all edits, protect articles, and in extreme cases use WMF litigation to actuate sanctions that will stop policy violators for once and for all. It's the attitude that all of Wikipedia's trivial rules must be enforced. By the courts if necessary. Asking a judge to take action over someone adding good material to Wikipedia goes well beyond common sense. IMHO. --Pete (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
            • The community kicked him out because of his behavior. It doesn't matter if he's writing good content if he's not adding it in good faith, considering he knows full well he's been banned and he's just showing that such a trivial thing won't stop him rather than abiding by the honor system in place and then ask to be allowed back on the community's terms. The banning policy may be in place to keep people rolling back obvious disruption like vandalism and trolling from being blocked for it, but how Russavia has been acting is disruptive, even if he is producing content that no one would have second thoughts about if he was not banned. WP:BAN does include the caveat that content could be kept after examination by another party to see if it should be included under the same umbrella that defines "revert it because it shouldn't have happened in the first place".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
              • Thanks, nice summary. What you going to do? Ban him for being disruptive? React to trolling? Revert good edits? Can't see a win here. --Pete (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
                • There isn't any good answer, but I'm already on his shit list for having said anything here and for having the gall to try to clean up disruption that spilled over from here to the Commons, so I've lost any good faith I could have had in him considering I never dealt with him prior to the David Horvitz cleanup.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
• LOL isn't this guy a sysop at Commons? Stay classy, Wikimedia... Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Whether or not somebody is an admin (not "sysop") at another project is irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It is relevant. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as globally locking people's accounts across all of the various projects. That has happened to others. In any case, this episode demonstrates why bans are a waste of time, so I'll just leave it at that. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Adminship is only a big deal locally. That's how you have a serial sockpuppeter who got adminship at en.wiktionary and managed to delete the main page on more than one occasion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Coordinated vandalism on music articles

Just a heads-up: over the last couple of days, there has been a wave of vandalism from new accounts (probably 4chan or something like that) changing the genre of children's music groups to death metal, and changing death metal groups to children's music. Please be aware and revert/block on sight. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem with "new" user

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's some shenanigans going on with Thies (talk · contribs). They keep recreating the same article, and then when it is tagged for speedy deletion, they immediately move it to their userspace. They have created the same article today under at least two different titles and pulled the same game with both. I asked them on their talk page why they moved the first article, the response was that they got confused, but then they've repeated the same action after that. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Also, based on the account name and the content of the article in the user's sandbox, it seems the author of the article is also the developer of the software. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Not new, he's been promoting his software since May 2007. Indefinitely blocked as an advertising only account. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2014 (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.

Esteban And Company

Hi, editor Esteban And Company claims on their user page to have an admin account and I was hoping an admin could look into this. Some of his recent edits are unsourced[61][62], dubious[63], and incorrect[64]), which suggests that he is attempting to pass himself off as an admin. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the admin and checkuser icons from the page along with the statement until information is presented tying the account to an account with admin/checkuser rights. GB fan 19:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems to resolve it. Chillum 19:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

For reference, the SPI results can be found here.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Single purpose account POV-pushing against academia and common sense, probable troll

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.

---

Someone who ascribes belief in a scientific 'god' to atheists, even after it's explained that atheism is, by definition, the absence of a belief in gods or the active rejection of a belief in gods, must be a troll, right? That or we've got a WP:CIR block on our hands.

TheLeopardTree (talk · contribs) has continued to push for that position at Talk:God#Inaccuracies_must_be_rectified, along with the idea that Christianity (regardless of the doctrines of its churches) divides divinity among God and Satan (that'd be Manichaeism), and that Buddhists view nirvana as God instead of being non-theistic and seeing nirvana as extinguishing one's existence (as per the sources in all our articles on the matter and any introductory work on the religion) -- all as part of a replacement for the current introduction, despite more than one user explaining why that's a bad idea. The current lede is sourced to a variety of philosophical encyclopedias and other academic works. His replacement is only sourced by the 1973 Webster's, Wikipedia, and etymonline.com and his admitted ignorance regarding Buddhism. He is aware of the disparity, but continues to advocate for his view.

If it wasn't for the atheism bit, I'd assume that he's acting in ignorant good faith and ask for more eyes. The atheism bit leaves me so unable to assume both good faith and competence from him that I would rather see at least the serious threat of a topic ban. He is either a troll or a Dunning-Kruger case study POV-pusher who needs a WP:CIR block or ban from theological topics.

New user who doesn't understand a topic? I'll be glad to explain how to use Google books to quickly find WP:RSs, and paraphrase to avoid WP:COPYVIOs. User who knows nothing about a topic and acts like their opinion is WP:THETRUTH? No use for them. Ian.thomson (talk)

I'm not sure it's trolling. This wouldn't be the first time I've heard atheism called a religion. Although, most often that's in the context of getting atheism treated the same way as religions in regards to the law. I'd lay this down as more of a CIR issue than trolling.--v/r - TP 01:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I could understand arguing that atheism is a religion (an atheist friend and I both tend to discuss New Atheism that way when bashing fundamentalism of all sorts), but that's not what's going on here. This individual is suggesting that atheism actually has a sort of god-figure (theism, the opposite of atheism), which is different and distinct from religious belief. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.--v/r - TP 02:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The only single-POV contributor here is the plaintiff. Review the proposed edit; once you understand the diction (which plaintiff has demonstrated he cannot) the edit is abundantly clear, precisely accurate, and does not shake any pillars of any religion - nor atheism. TheLeopardTree (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

No, you are wrong. Atheists do not worship science nor do they have to take science on faith. Scientific facts can be reproduced and demonstrated. There is broad consensus on this. The POV is what you are pushing. Can you demonstrate with reliable sources that your view is the predominate one?--v/r - TP 02:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@TheLeopardTree:, do you deny that you wrote that Christianity divides god into God and Satan? Do you deny that you wrote that atheists "adopt a scientific god?" Do you deny that you are proposing a re-write of the an introduction based (so far) on two sources (one of them Wikipedia!), even though the current introduction cites multiple higher-quality sources (including the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and a number of works from university presses)?

Do you deny that you have refused to acknowledge the sources that demonstrate that what you wrote about Christianity and atheism are patently wrong?

I've understand your diction, what you proposed is simply wrong. That you continue to push for it and refuse to acknowledge the possibility that you might not be right, even though all the sources in the article and almost a dozen additional citations I provided (not opinions, but academic works) point out major problems with your claims, is why you come across as a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not a court of law. There is no plaintiff. Please develop a sense of proportion, along with research skills and patience. AlexTiefling (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I never insinuated athiests worship science. That is a religious holding, not philosophical. That is 'precisely' why the article needs revision.

In fact, I never even stated all athiests believe in science, nor do I believe that to be the case.

Furthermore science can, and has been, proven inaccurate; faith is something you believe to be without quantifiable proof. The topic in question, god, houses both schools-of-thought because both attempt to explain the universal essence of being; theism versus atheism cannot do this. TheLeopardTree (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

Again, do you deny that you wrote that Christianity divides god into God and Satan? Do you deny that you wrote that atheists "adopt a scientific god?" Do you deny that you are proposing a re-write of the an introduction based (so far) on two sources (one of them Wikipedia!), even though the current introduction cites multiple higher-quality sources (including the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and a number of works from university presses)? Do you deny that you have refused to acknowledge the sources that demonstrate that what you wrote about Christianity and atheism are patently wrong?

Refusal to answer these questions, as with your refusal to acknowledge the article's current sources as well as the ones I brought up, and your sheer inability to listen to anyone are not good signs. They don't come across as conviction, they come across as a problematic editor who shouldn't be allowed near the topic.

Wikipedia paraphrases and summarizes reliable sources. It is not the place for original research. We do not care what you think is the truth, only what published academic works say (without addition or alteration). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ian you simply don't understand the diction yet. I imagine this is exactly what happened to Galileo during the inquisition, or various others who believed the world to be round. TheLeopardTree (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

Galileo's problem was that he made fun of the Pope for asking for more evidence. Your problem is that your diction and its message are wrong, and you've got your head so far up yourself that you've confused your bowels for heaven and assume anything pulled out your arse must be Gospel.

Verifiability, not truth, is the standard here, the founding standard. If your claims are not backed up by academic sources, it doesn't matter what your claims are. That your claims go against academic sources only makes things worse, as does your inability to acknowledge that. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

TheLeopardTree - you might be 100% right. However, Wikipedia follows scholarly consensus and scholarly consensus just doesn't support your idea - at least yet. When it does, your changes can be incorporated. Until then, Wikipedia is not the place to push minor viewpoints.--v/r - TP 03:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You're being extremely unclear as to what you mean by 'the diction' here. As this is a written medium, no-one is doing any actual speaking, which is what 'diction' usually refers to. WP:FLAT ironically deals with your round-world example. By the by, the world had been known to be round since classical times; Galileo provided no new evidence on this front. I'd suggest that on Christian theology, as on linguistics and the history of science, you lack the necessary competence to contribute here. AlexTiefling (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair point, --v/r. I am yet satisfied, but fair. How does one source diction other than with a definition? I have done so yet remain rebuked for 'lack of citations'. Alex, by 'diction' I mean simply that - diction. Ian hasn't grasped the language well enough to understand the thought. There is nothing inconsistent between my proposal and any established (academic or otherwise) interpretations of faith, religion, theism, atheism, science, physics, etc. The introduction stands alone on diction, the citations are for further evaluation, explanation, and reference libraries. TheLeopardTree (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

If your diction is unclear, you need to improve it. You haven't really tried that. And I presented several sources pointing out a very big problem with your treatment of atheism and the inherent definition. You also haven't presented a solid source for your suggestions, which is your job. No sources, no additions, per the foundational policy WP:V. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not that my diction lacks clarity, it's that you refuse to understand my words.

Again, what do you want me to source Ian? It's a dictionary definition, not an academic treatise on what god is. God is what you choose it to be, and as an atheist I understand your intractable refutation of this concept because you believe it opposes your ideals but I assure you - it doesn't. You simply cannot grasp the diction and for that humanity suffers. TheLeopardTree (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

Bollocks on the claim that I refuse to understand them. "You wouldn't understand" is a cop-out by bad writers and pretentious hacks.

The bits about Christianity, atheism, and Buddhism are not from the dictionary, and are counter to the majority of sources (including dictionaries, and many other higher-quality sources).

Wikipedia is concerned with simply repeating academic sources. Get it through your skull. We do not say anything beyond what is in those sources, nothing in addition to them, not even elaborate interpretations of them, just summaries of academic sources. If you don't want to do that, go somewhere else. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"You simply cannot grasp the diction and for that humanity suffers." - We're here to write an encyclopedia here, not save humanity. You're using language in a highly idiosyncratic way. I'd encourage you to write more plainly. What do you mean by 'the diction', please? AlexTiefling (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say "you wouldn't understand", Ian. Your argument is weak, at best. You have no place in the realm of academics and I will gather sources as required for administrator approbation. Ian, what is god? G'day chap. TheLeopardTree (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

Would you mind answering my question? AlexTiefling (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Alex, I'll relent. He can have his last word if he chooses. Apologies for the delay I wanted to get this right the first time.

By 'the diction' I am addressing the meaning behind the word. For example: anarchists often decry the "State" as the source of all societal misfortune but when one understands the diction you realize that a 'state' necessarily must exist for society to function in any organized capacity because the state is defined as 'organized society'; there is nothing coercive about a state, the state simply facilitates the transmission of knowledge. Essentially society is a body of people, the state is the social-hierarchy that creates a productive framework to pass on knowledge, and government is the body of people within the state that enforce law. Most anarchists don't want to destroy the state, they want a new State where they feel utilized; nearly all want to dissolve the government. Most athiests aren't at odds with god, they are at odds with supernatural deities (God[s]); very few believe there is no explanation at all for the universe (that would be, loosely, nihilism).

Diction is crucial and it pains me to see people fighting over scraps before first consuming the meat. TheLeopardTree (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

Topic ban for TheLeopardTree

I propose that TheLeopardTree be topic banned from all articles relating to theology, broadly construed (so including mythology, magic, divinity, religion, philosophy concerning the prior), due to continued tendentious editing, including continued acknowledge POV-pushing, refusal to acknowledge that said POV is contrary to academic sources on the matter, refusal to accept independent assessment, refusal to cite sources for his suggestions, and pretentious claims about diction. We've wasted hours on him, and he's given little to no indication of improvement. Yay or nay? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Given the above off-topic display of apparent cluelessness, [65] I'd have to suggest that a topic ban is insufficient, and that TheLeopardTree should be blocked indefinitely as displaying no evidence of being able to contribute towards Wikipedia in any useful capacity. Whether this is a genuine lack of competence or trolling I have no idea, and frankly don't think it's worth wasting our time trying to find out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support For Andy's suggestion as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support at least a topic-ban, wouldn't mind indef (never infinite) either per WP:NOTHERE... the message that Wikipedia isn't for airing one's personal theories isn't getting through. We're supposed to be here to communicate well-supported, pertinent information clearly and this contributor just doesn't seem to be able to do any part of that. Zad68 04:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

“This is my simple religion. No need for temples. No need for complicated philosophy. Your own mind, your own heart is the temple. Your philosophy is simple kindness.” ― Dalai Lama XIV

The Trial of Socrates Stone, I.F., 2009. 978-0385260329. is an interesting read. In it Socrates postulates that only "the one who knows" can know, and that knowledge cannot be taught. Some will understand, then know, but knowledge cannot be taught - according to Socrates.

If you're going to delete my thoughts from this website you are harming humanity. My thoughts are cyclical, as are your actions if no one will step in to support free, academic expression.

Smith, Huston. The World's Religions, 2009. ISBN-13: 9780061660184.

Fisher, Mary Pat. Living Religions, 2013. ISBN-13: 978-0205956401

Morford, Mark P.O., Lenardon, Robert J., Sham, Michael. Classical Mythology, 2010. ISBN-13: 978-0195397703 TheLeopardTree (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

• Yeah...given the above it's pretty obvious that at the very least we have a terminal lack of clue here. Block has been applied. If it becomes evident that clue has been gained, and that the 'not here' or 'trolling' options can be dismissed, anyone can unblock without asking me first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, there is certainly an issue with clue here. Chillum 21:16, 20 August 2014 (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.

Topic Ban Review

Cailil is really busy in real life and so has recommended that I ask here for someone to do the review. The previous review can be found here. I know it takes time to do a review, so thank you in advance. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about "someone" doing a review. You're now asking the community to do a review. First: you'll need to link to the discussion that led to the topic ban. You'll need to link to where you were notified that the topic ban was in effect. You'll need to educate us as to what you've been doing in the meantime - i.e. showing that you've been able to edit positively outside the area of the topic without any squabbles. Finally, you need to show us your way forward: if permitted back into that topic area, how will you act? What will you do to avoid the behaviours that led to the topic ban. Remember that if the community lessens the topic ban and you go back to the same issues, the next step is not a re-imposition of the topic ban, it's usually a block - after all, a TBAN's role is to be that "last chance before an indef" the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, some background; this stems from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#User:LevenBoy which led to the issue being added to general sanctions; the page listing topic bans etc. is at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log. HighKing was topic-banned in August 2011, it was lifted in June 2012, and then re-imposed in June 2013. HighKing has not been a prolific editor since then, but I can see no actual violation of the topic ban (i.e. adding/removing "British Isles" in articlespace), although he has been active on the talkpages of British Isles and some others as regards naming disputes. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that he was let back in and did it again doesn't give me the warm fuzzies the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• HighKing has noted my extremely busy RL situation (this wont change in the short term) since this is a community sanction the community can overturn/change the topic ban if there is a consensus to do so. In the past I've been concerned more that there is no fundamental change in HK's behaviour from gnoming in British & Irish topic areas, most notably but not limited to naming disputes related to British-Irish history or historical figures or flora and fauna articles, rather than there being an actual breach of the topic ban. From my point of view as this is an indefinite topic ban there needs to be (as EatsShootsAndLeaves points out) evidence of positive attitudinal change and development of a different/productive way of editing. From my point of view showing the community *only* that ban has not been broken proves that the ban works not that it should be lifted--Cailil ^talk 18:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, this Topic Ban is specifically in relation to editing in relation to the term "British Isles". From discusions with Cailil, we agreed that the disruptive behaviour was rooted in a couple of habits that ultimately led to squabbles and disruption - and although primarily with a banned sock, it was pointed out (and ultimately I recognized and accepted) that my behaviour was the "trigger" for the sock to engage. Regardless of the right/wrong of each individual situation, ultimately my editing was the common factor, and therefore something needed to change. Since that time, it is true that I've not been as prolific. Partly because my previous "gnoming" in these areas (one of the areas that needed addressing) accounted for a high proportion of my editing, and partly because of changes in real-life. Since the Topic Ban I've created a couple of articles - Sir Fineen O'Driscoll and Coppingers Court, one of the areas I was told I should concentrate on rather than gnoming. I believe I understand which of my editing habits were problematic in the past, and I won't be revisiting those habits in the future. Thanks for taking the time. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Rape statistics

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.

---

An IP editor [66] is repeatedly removing material cited to Amnesty International from the article on the basis that AI is using a "non existent study" to support its statistics. The IP provides no evidence of this but just repeatedly asserts it ("You're quoting the article, but the study mentioned by the article can't be found. You're quoting a non-existing study"). It's not obvious vandalism since the IP may well sincerely believe what s/he is saying, so I don't want to break 3RR, but the edit warring needs to be stopped and, IMO, should not be rewarded. I have read the source and left a detailed discussion of it on the talk page. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2014 (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:46.229.193.141

Hi, I need some administrator intervention, according to the manual of style, we are not a programming guide, I have tried to remove any information that violates policy is wikipedia, but all it does ip is reverse my edits without any reason, and in my edit summary've clearly put, because I have removed this information.

Here I give some links: La impostora, I'm talking about this. If you look at the contributions of the ip, they will realize that all it does is revertirme without explanation. I do not want to violate the rule of the 3 reversals, so I'm asking for help because they do not know.

Ohter articles:

1. Mentir para Vivir: Revision history
2. Rosa diamante: Revision history
3. The House Next Door (telenovela): Revision history
4. Corazón valiente: Revision history
5. Santa Diabla: Revision history

There are many more items where the same thing is happening, I have not left any messages since the user; perhaps ignore, really do not know what to do. If they could protect the items or something.--Damián (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

William L. Uanna

Editor claiming to be the son of subject insists upon adding original research pertaining to Uanna's cause of death (supposed murder, contrary to reliable sourcing which claims heart attack). See [67]. I've raised the issue on the editor's talk page to no avail, and I would request intervention by an administrator or experienced user on this. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

By "intervention" I was referring to more attention focused on this article, which has been done although the editor in question has not responded. I wasn't requesting any action against this particular editor based upon what has happened to date. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

See also CIC777, who has one contribution here but several related uploads at Commons. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Steven Uanna's viewpoint about William Uanna's cause of death is potentially relevant under NPOV and so I don't have a problem leaving a mention in the article, especially if it can be supported by an external citation to an RS mentioning the viewpoint (not necessarily supporting the murder theory directly). Web search does show that Steven Uanna seems to have been making the claim for a while. He gives some detailed arguments that I currently haven't examined carefully. I'd like to AGF/DONTBITE and treat the editing problem as a newbie not understanding our sourcing requirements, so I'll look over the contribution a little more and try to discuss things with him on his talk page. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've made some remarks at their talk page which expands on your points and hopefully explains why and directs them to the appropriate extended information they should peruse to understand what they need to do. Blackmane (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I also made a comment there. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

All very helpful, thanks. There's no question the user raised this point in good faith, but the relevant policy was pointed out on multiple occasions without effect, and he edit-warred. Appreciate the extra eyes on the article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, just a correction to Kinu's reference. The user is CIC7. Blackmane (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I know. My comment was to note this user's other account, which is mentioned here. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate this discussion. My father's career was a part of U.S. and world history. A history I contend has not been properly told. That is why I publish information about him on Wikipedia and Commons under Category:Bud Uanna. For me this is also a murder investigation. I know what I heard from my mother for years - that he was murdered - and how she felt helpless to do anything about it. And I also know that at the end of the movie ENOLA GAY it said that he was murdered. My mother and I did not give this information to the producers of the movie. And I don't think they put it in there to spice up a story that already was one of the most controversial of the past century. Look at what my father did and who he knew. Look at he people who should of said something about him in their "histories" like Leslie Groves or Otto Otepka. My hope is that someone will see the statement by me and the movie and be moved to come clean about what they know about his death. I believe this may open avenues to other mysteries, I wont say which ones now. I knew my father, the kind of person he was. And documents that can be viewed on Commons show the good character he had. I believe people who had bad intentions for the United States knew that he would be trouble to them if he were around. Why can't what my mother said and what the movie said be on his page William Lewis Uanna?CIC7 (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• This is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, nor is it a place to publish 'the truth'. Wikipeidia is an encyclopedia, and as such must only report what is verifiable through reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place to put what your mother told you in hopes 'someone will come clean', and it is not a place to put a theory that was advanced by a theatrical production. it is a place to put what published sources have stated; even if it happens that what is verifiable is not necessarily 'the truth'. There are many other ways in which you can reach out for information and to get your father's name 'out there' as a good person, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Unfortunatly if you are only here to do that your continued editing career will be quite short. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Steven, the issue here is that we can't be the outlet for the first publication of anything (sort of the opposite of typical academic journals or magazines, which don't want anything that's already been published elsewhere). We need for the info to be published somewhere else first, so we can cite it. Another thing going on is that certain Wikipedia editors tend to freak out at anything hosted on Youtube, because of the amount of self-created video on that site gives it a bad reputation for reliability. In the case of a researched production like the Enola Gay movie though, our usual sourcing standards IMHO should apply, i.e. reliability comes from the level of research care that went into the production, not which website it got uploaded to 35 years later. (The movie is also available on DVD).

You mentioned that the movie was based on the book by Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan-Witts. Does the book say anything about this issue? There apparently was a 1977 edition that they made the movie from, and a later revision that was expanded considerably, and either sounds like a reasonable source. So if the info is in the book, just give the page number and that may solve the whole problem (my local library has the book so I can go there and check the page).

I did find the Youtube video (v=ZXyUPYPwWbg) and watched the last few minutes and the end credits. The end credits show pictures of the main characters and have overlay captions saying what the person did after the war. The one for William Uanna (at 2:21:41 in the video) says "Uanna became a member of the CIA and was murdered in Africa. Any records of his death have subsequently disappeared." The movie itself (IMDB page) has been described as a historical drama that's partly fictionalized, so the movie content has RS problems as a source of factual biographical info, but the end credits are arguably not part of the dramatization. Anyway, I'm personally ok with mentioning the end credit statement in the "film portrayals" part of the article, as long as not much space goes to it (WP:UNDUE) and it probably shouldn't be in the main biographical part of the article due to RS concerns (discussion of this should be on the article talk page). I'd be uncomfortable with the article riffing at length off the movie blurb unless there's more documentation cited from elsewhere. If you want to write up your interpretation in more detail, it's best to get it into another outlet (e.g. academic journal) which we can then cite, since it is then part of the historical record. Does this help? 50.0.205.237 (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of Wikipedia is that it is a work in progress. Information is put in and then someone may research and add to or take from it. I am one person. I am William Uanna's son, he is the subject of this discussion. Readers of Wikipedia are many people. I think they should be able to take what I say about my mother's belief and do what they want with it. I am saying what I was told by my mother. I can tell you more details of what she said she experienced but I have a feeling someone will say prove it. As far as to the movie Enola Gay, they must have been secure in their statement. I am not a lawyer but I think some sort of suit could have been brought against them for saying something like that. Would they that much time and effort into the movie and then say something like that at the end offhandedly. As to "the truth", what else is an encyclopedia for? I believe that "the truth" will eventually come back up no matter how deep it is buried. So please take a little time and look at the documents and pictures at Category:Bud Uanna (I had put up many more but they were deleted) and at the Atomic Heritage site... Ask yourself why someone would want someone like this out of the way? And why can't all the information about him be available. Much of it hadCIC7 (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC) been covered up until I posted the FOI documents and pictures.

Collapsed by author for brevity and because it's missing some nuance that would have made it even longer. Steven, feel free to use my talk page if you think I can be of any further help. 50.0.205.237 (talk)

Steven, when you write "[i]nformation is put in and then someone may research and add to or take from it", there's a considerable omission there, that I think shows a misunderstanding of how this place works. Yes, we're supposed to add information, but only information that has already been published elsewhere (we call such info "verifiable", per WP:Verifiability). We're not an outlet for publishing novel interpretations or newly discovered info, and we resist that to the point that "original research" is almost a swear word around here (see WP:NOR). I think it's ok to count the Enola Gay movie credits as a "publication" and put something into the article about it as mentioned above: if you want, I'll add it for you myself, though I can't promise that nobody will revert it. I think it's also ok for you to put a summary of your claims and documentation on the article discussion page (Talk:William L. Uanna) since it might be useful for locating published info elsewhere, or supplying context for existing info. There's really only one path to getting significant coverage of the info in Wikipedia: 1) first, get it published someplace else (not here); 2) next, come back here and say "ok, the info is now in such-and-such outlet, issue so-and-so, month and year so-and-so, page xyz". At that point we can use the info, with a citation to the other outlet. I'm also not sure Commons is the best place to upload those documents: Wikisource might be better, and archive.org would almost certainly welcome them (click the "upload" button in the upper right corner of the archive.org home page, register an account and upload your docs--they can even OCR printed page scans automatically). Note that we actually don't care very much about whether your interpretation is true, so we won't ask you to prove anything about how William Uanna died. When it's an issue of controversy with multiple conflicting opinions, part of our neutrality ethos is that it's not up to us to decide who is right. We instead want to non-judgmentally present every notable viewpoint, where "notable" means "independently published", even though (since they contradict each other) at least some of them must be wrong. Our readers then decide for themselves what to believe. The requirement of independent publication is basically how we avoid becoming a soapbox for fringey or far-out claims (we used to have a bad problem with physics theory cranks, which is how the NOR policy got started). We figure out how much space to give each claim based on the amount of independent coverage that exists for that claim. I'm not a lawyer either but I don't see much legal exposure to the movie company from that end credit. They didn't implicate any specific people in any crimes, so nobody has anything to sue over. We'd be having a rather more difficult conversation if there were allegations of wrongdoing against specific people, especially currently living people, but for the stuff under discussion we can take a slightly looser approach than we would use in more contentious topics. I hope this helps you understand Wikipedia better. If there's more to discuss, we should probably stop clogging ANI with it, and use either your talk page or the article talk page instead. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Various user accusations

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.

---

Recently i asked the user Duffbeerforme politely if he would participate in a proposal. He indeed did, however, the first thing he done was to accuse me of venue shopping, and appeared in his arguments, to ignore the entire previous proposal discussion. He also posted his comment at the bottom of the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANotability_%28music%29&diff=622006484&oldid=621935959), with each of his several assumptions in a single line, thus i removed the blank spaces, and moved his comment in the discussion space. Today, i retracted my proposal, when he claimed in his edit summary, where he again posted his comment in single lines(though this time not at the bottom of the page) that i would act in bad faith (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)&diff=next&oldid=622123693). I tried to explain to Duftbeerforme, that i brought it into line with all the other comments. He then went to my user page and accused me of disruptive behavior.I one time reverted his edit, including a proper summary and comment into the discussion space, why. However, he went on to ask me again why i did this. After i told him that i did not edit/delete his comments, instead just changed the layout, he claimed i would lie (See my talk page).

I have no idea what's wrong with this user, i never had contact with him before. There are no reasons to bring up so many accusations, and which are baseless. I took a look at WP:Forum shopping, and it should be obvious that my proposal does not apply to this rule, nor my actions. This should be clear to everyone who participated in the discussion. I assume the user did not even bothered to read previous discussions. I would ask the board for an interaction ban. Thank you. --prokaryotes (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

prokaryotes repeatedly refactored my comment from discrete points presented separately to a strange run on mess. That is not acceptable. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Changing the layout is editing the comment. Duff is correct to say so. Is there a good reason for refactoring Duff's comments? Reyk _YO! 00:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

He posted it in a manner which was not easy to follow up, there was a section above as well, just take a look at the edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANotability_%28music%29&diff=622006484&oldid=621935959). However, i don't see how this qualifies to state i act in bad faith or lie or his claim i would venue shopping.He also claimed it was disruptive editing, which also does not apply. I done one edit, two days ago and one revert today. prokaryotes (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2014 (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.

Suicide notes

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.

---

What do we do with these such as this one here Talk:Suicide#Going_to_commit_suicide? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm says to take all threats seriously. I have sent an email to emergency@wikimedia -- Diannaa (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks appreciate it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:06, 21 August 2014 (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:HBC AIV helperbot11

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:HBC AIV helperbot11 is malfunctioning. Kept removing my report about an IP from WP:AIV claiming the IP has been blocked indef when it is not blocked and continues to vandalize. HkCaGu (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

IP has been blocked by CambridgeBayWeather and article semi protected. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• The bot believed the IP to be blocked because the outdated Perl code does not handle unexpected Unicode in an IP address very well. Specifically, in your report, your {{IPvandal|58.97.142.152}} contained a Unicode E2 80 83 character at the end of the IP address before the closing braces. Google says this is apparently an "em space", which is invisible while editing the page, but still present - probably something you copied in from somewhere. The bot rendered it as "58.97.142.152â" in the logs, which caused it to erroneously match against other blocks and think the IP was blocked when it hadn't been. In the future, my advice is to re-enter your report by hand (without copy/pasting or reverting) if one of the helperbots repeatedly removes it. —Darkwind (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2014 (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:Бучач-Львів

After I undid the edit of this user in Kiev replacing Kiev with Kyiv (note that the topic was discussed extensively at the talk page, even having ts own subpage Talk:Kiev/naming, where I referred them to), he went to my talk page first leaving me a message in Ukrainian which I do not speak [68], which, if I get it correctly, says that Russians should not edit articles about Ukraine. When I complained that I do not understand they left another message in Russian [69] developing the same idea in more detail: if I am a "good" Russian I should change Kiev to Kyiv, and if I am "bad" Russian he does not want to lose time educating me, but he agrees not to change Moskva to Maskva. I feel that the discussion goes nowhere, and I do not see a single many constructive contributions of this user in a couple of months, so that may be someone (best not Russian) can teach them manners.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I just undid the same sort of spelling variant change at Kiev Mountains. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've dropped them a note and a "don't do it!" warning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Note also this edit, where this user removes a request by JerzyL (talk · contribs) to rid the English Wikipedia of "stupid" 'Kiev' and to replace it with 'Kyiv' and then starts acting on it in the subsequent edits.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 21, 2014; 12:07 (UTC)

Now the user has responded at their talk page, and I am afraid we have a case of WP:NOTTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

 Comment:: [70] says:

"What've you, nothing better to do, brother Slav? This is the Ukrainian capital we're talking about, after all; whereas you've your Moscow. (unclear): That should be quite enough for you."

It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess (unclear) means "have", but I am not sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

2.98.242.237 obviously WP:NOTHERE

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.

---

2.98.242.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Cant report to aiv, not just vandalism, cant report to anew, not just edit warring, actions seem pretty obvious though. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 48h, talk page access removed because of the previous abuse.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2014 (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.

Abuse and unsubstantiated allegations

There is currently an edit war raging at Headlamp (outdoor) where Bgwhite is continually reverting an edit despite there being support on the talk page that the referencing is inadequate - but this is not the issue.

In pursuit of this war Bgwhite has resorted to abuse and making allegations of sockpuppetry without substantiating them.

The first unsubstantiated allegation is in the edit summary to this reversion. At this point it was not stated who he believed that I was a sockpuppet of.

The second allegation is at this post to the talk page where he has now specifically identified DieSwartzPunkt as my alleged alter ego (and is the only person to have done so).

It is clear that this allegation is a direct tit-for-tat for the recent SPI case that I raised against Bgwhite.

I have little doubt that Bgwhite has latched onto this from DoRD's comment at the end of that SPI case where he suggested that an unidentified editor was editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny, though no evidence has so far been forthcoming (and never will).

I am perfectly happy for the admins to run a check user (or whatever it is you do) where you should discover that DieSwartzPunkt has never edited from any of the IP addresses in the group 85.255.234.xxx.

I am stuck with constantly changing IP addresses through no fault of my own. This is down to my ISP. And before you suggest that I create an account, I never create accounts where I do not need to. It is a nightmare enough job as it is keeping track of dozens of usernames and passwords. 212.183.140.26 (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I log on to find this mess. I can assist here. I will have to put my hands up and admit to this edit [71]. This follows the Wikipedia site crashing Internet explorer (as it does so regularly) so I was auto-loged out while making the edit, but failed to notice until afterwards (it not being possible to correct this after the edit). My IP address (86.150.137.204) is shown at that edit and, according to my router, it is my IP address now. I had hoped Geo-locate might further clear this up, but while it shows more or less right for my current location, it is of no help with any of the other IP addresses other than to show that they are not even used by the same service provider.

I have no problem with a check user verifying that my IP address is as given above for this post and that I have not used any of the 85 series used in the subject article or indeed the 212 address above. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

And to verify, this post has been added after deliberately logging out. For the avoidance of further geo-location, I shall reset my router immediately following this edit, so any geo-locate will return the location of the IP address server, unless the address is allocated to someone else when you will get their location. 86.150.137.204 (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

76.28.9.36 + more

The user 76.28.9.36 has already been blocked for persistent vandalism of the List of The Garfield Show episodes page. [72] However, it appears this same person is trying to evade the block by using other IP addresses to continue making the same edits on that page (which includes/has included adding in nonsense, removal of definitive articles from episode titles, removal of entire content, etc.). Most recent IP addresses which have made all too similar edits are [73] and [74]. I have previously reported this person on the vandalism board, but this time I was advised to bring the current case here. I should say that this person's activity on that episode page goes back to January of this year, and said person clearly seems relentless in making bogus edits- old and new- on there. I just wish it would be stopped (or at least significantly impeded). — Preceding unsigned comment added by GVO8891 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack

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, User:Moonraker™ has made an unprovoked attack on me when vandalising the Manchester United page, which was brought to my knowledge by a very useful Wiki editor. Here is the message that alerted me of this, [Also, you need to revert User:Moonraker™'s last edit to the Manchester United F.C. article as not only has he undone several days' worth of edits, he's also clearly acting in violation of WP:POINT. – PeeJay 22:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)] And here is the link to it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manchester_United_F.C.&diff=622113319&oldid=622094224 Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User was warned and the edit has been reverted. I'd suggest that both of you stick to editing, and if you disagree on something, let's take it to the talk page instead of jabs in the edit summary. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100%, and I am not perfect far from it but just what jab did I make? Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Know more about United then you mate. isn't exactly the nicest way to say that you disagree ;) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, well it wasn't meant like you think and as I said above his was unprovoked, can't say the same for mine. Does that make it right no but do I deserve to be attacked when I am volunteering here and taking my own time to help keep these articles as best as they can be. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

We're all volunteers, and each editor deserves the same amount of respect. He was warned, you haven't been - I'd suggest moving on and continuing those awesome contributions of yours :) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed and thank you for taking the time to look into the report, I appreciate it. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2014 (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.

Mikemikev 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.

---

Mikemikev (talk · contribs) seems to be back in the guise of FrankRamsbottom (talk · contribs). User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:58, 21 August 2014 (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.

Admin is vandalizing

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,

The user Deb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deb) is vandalizing the May 22 wikipedia page by constantly reverting to her edit which deletes many legitimate entries. I have tried posting on her talk page and she still continues to revert to her edits. Her edits are illegitimate deletions.

This user must be stopped. She is behaving in a malicious and inconsiderate manner, yet she is also an administrator. Where can I solicit help for this situation? I tried posting in the AIV page but an administrator told me that they were not going to block another admin.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

1) Vandalism is a bad faith attempt to deface Wikipedia. Deb's edits are good faith attempts to improve it whether you disagree that is the result or not. 2) This report comes off as a personal attack. Stick to the facts and support them with Diffs. 3) There is no way in hell any administrator is going to block Deb for reverting you once whether Deb is an admin or not.--v/r - TP 02:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Please look again. She not only made a reversion once, she also made two seriously negative edits. Look at the history and the recent red marks on the page for May 22. I believe she is performing vandalism as it is done in bad faith--an attempt to deface a part of Wikipedia by deleting legitimate content. Deb's edits are not done in good faith. She is attempting to make it look like she is deleting things using deletion criteria but I looked at the criteria and none of what she removed matches it. This is an illegitimate deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why Deb is editing that article the way they are, it does look potentially problematic, but it is definitely not vandalism, and looks like a content dispute combined with a lack of communication. The first thing you need to do is start a conversation with Deb, either on their talk page, or on the talk page of the article. If after talking it out, there is still a problem, try WP:DRN. If you have a problem after that, maybe bring it back here. Monty₈₄₅ 03:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@IP: WP:NOTVAND.--v/r - TP 03:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The basic problem is that the IP never uses edit summaries except when they are defaulted. Some editors routinely revert edits without edit summaries, especially from unregistered editors. My advice to the OP is, first, create an account, second, use edit summaries, third, desist from the personal attacks, and, fourth, take a less hostile attitude in order to avoid being indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, she is deleting legitimate content. Look at this diff page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_22&diff=621890314&oldid=621873503) which is just the latest content she attempted to remove. Please take a look at the CORRECT diff pages, otherwise you will think she is only making minor changes. She is making serious, major changes, not only to this page, but to several others as well. It's difficult not to take a hostile attitude when she is attempting to undermine other people's contributions illegitimately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And just to be clear, she has made other deletions before to the May 22 page (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_22&action=history). This is just the latest attempt she has made to partially deface the page. I believe that she is using the lack of edit summary as an excuse to revert that single edit. But previously, she deleted even more legitimate content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Folks this conversation is also going on here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#How to deal with Administrator who is vandalizing.3F. Whether this is a simple error or WP:FORUMSHOPPING I suggest that one of them be closed and merged with the other one to cut down on confusion for those dealing with it. MarnetteD|Talk 03:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The OP's forum-shopping aside, is there any justification for Deb's action? Surely the criterion for retention is whether the content is any good, not whether edit summaries are used? That can be addressed by admonishing the user, rather than undoing a constructive edit. AlexTiefling (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I have already admonished the user, but she made a revert after I warned her. Please move this conversation to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard). You can look up the diffs on that page and see how her editing is actually quite disruptive. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Er, you are the user I was suggesting should be admonished, for not using edit summaries, if that were appropriate. AlexTiefling (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone already mentioned the lack of edit summaries. I believe Deb should be admonished, not me. Please continue the conversation on the other page linked above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

OK...I didn't see this. Now this is forum shopping. You need only one report to An or ANI...not both.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Do admin have reviewer rights as part of their tool kit? If so....I would say this could be misuse of admin tools in the same way it would be misuse of reviewer rights to decline a perfectly legitimate contribution that did not violate any of the pending changes issues the protection is for. It gave Deb a huge advantage to keep their opponents edits out.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The May 22 page isn't the only page that she is disrupting. Look at her history to see recent edits she made to other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not reviewer rights come with the tools, abuse of reviewer rights would not be abuse of the tools, as it is a seperate right. (Not saying that has or hasn't happened, but nipping that train of thought in the bud.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

If Deb used reviewer rights to decline the other editors contributions while adding their own that were automatically accepted...that is a misuse of the reviewer right. But if admin have reviewer rights as part of their tool kit it may not be a misuse of the admin tools (that seems to be the point you are trying to nip) but it is indeed a misuse of the reviewer right and does indeed look as if Deb was taking advantage of that. Blockable? No. Enough to take that tool away or ban them from further reviewing. No, not unless this was a pattern. Could it have been a simple mistake? Yes. Is there anything for an admin to intervene on here? Well...perhaps a warning to the OP to stop harassing Deb on her talk page and if not they may need an interaction ban or a possible short term block for WP:IDHT.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Whether the IP is right/wrong in their use, or lack thereof, of edit summaries. I find it highly problematic that someone, admin or otherwise, is reverting on that basis alone. AlanS (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't know that. She hasn't posted here yet. Has anyone even notified her? I'll post something on her talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think we may be conflating reverting and reviewing when we talk about this situation as "reviewer abuse". Any editor can revert an edit if they feel they have a good reason (terms & conditions may apply, etc, but this is just to an approximation). That's just how we edit - BRD. Now, if the page is under pending changes and the reverter is a reviewer (or admin), their revert is auto-accepted by the software, but they've reverted an edit, not declined it. That the reviewer right kicked in is a side effect, not something they deliberately did.

  That all said, "no edit summary" is an extremely strange reason to revert otherwise-acceptable content, and Deb does seem to have removed perfectly good, bluelinked content. If I didn't know better, looking at this diff, I would figure she'd gotten into some sort of weird edit conflict with herself and accidentally removed the stuff; as it is the whole thing seems to track back to an apparent desire to "globalize, aim for more even chronological spread". Seems to me that Deb is trying to curate the list so that it's less western-centric, but she's doing that by removing content without discussion, and it has come to her and the IP blanket-reverting each other instead of talking. Neither of them is vandalising, but neither of them is going about things in a way that's going to resolve this, either. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• As others are saying, 71.202.1.48 is being unnecessarily hostile (WP:BATTLEGROUND) towards Deb. Deb does seem to have made some suboptimal decisions, though there's no reason to think that was malicious. Pending Changes is a pretty new thing and there's not much body of established practice regarding it, but overall it's best not to reject an edit that contributes good info just because an edit summary is missing. Deb, it's best to accept pending edits unless an edit's problems are bad enough that they would lead you to revert the edit if it had been made in a non-protected page. For a minor problem like a missing edit summary, I'd say just accept the edit and leave the contributor a polite talk message saying how to do better next time. 71.202.1.48, please consider yourself gently reminded that edit summaries are a good thing and try to remember to use them in the future, and also to assume good faith (WP:AGF) and be nicer to other editors. You're apparently pretty familiar with Wikipedia technical and DR procedures by now, so if you continue to make bad faith assumptions or persist with elementary errors/discourtesies like omitting edit summaries, it can come across as WP:POINTy and result in your getting blocked. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• I am not trying to "override" her "contributions" which are not really contributions but involve her deleting legitimate stuff then adding something minor to use an excuse for her deletions. That is a "hidden" form of disruptive editing. I do know that she is engaging in disruptive editing, which BORDERS on vandalism, which is why I brought it up multiple times. People need to please stop defending her. It seems that admins aren't doing enough around here. Imagine someone coming along and deleting all your contributions that you've made over a few years and then someone declaring that you are guilty of edit warring and being hostile for trying to restore the previous edits and reporting that person then telling you that you can get blocked.71.202.1.48 (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have provided diffs already. Here they are again. She has made some serious deletions THREE TIMES. It is a pattern. And she is not just doing this on this page, she is doing it on several other pages. Check her history.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_22&diff=621890314&oldid=621873503

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_22&diff=621599760&oldid=621449085

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_22&diff=620641489&oldid=620283312

71.202.1.48 (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You have also been deleting her contributions.

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_22&diff=621873503&oldid=621671438

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_22&diff=621957289&oldid=621890314

GB fan 18:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I was restoring things to the previous version. There is a difference. If you actually read what I posted, I stated that she is making a minor "contribution" but making serious deletions, so I tried to revert her changes.71.202.1.48 (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if you look at the reverts you made, you restored information that she removed and removed information that she added. In her reverts she removed information that you added and restored information that she had added. Both of you need to look at what you are doing, and make sure it is what you want to do. If you think the information you are removing does not belong use the talk page to discuss why it does not belong. GB fan 19:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you actually know what reverting is? If someone deleted 100 entries then made 1 "contribution," and you reverted the edit this person made, would you consider that edit warring? I am not edit warring. I am simply trying to restore what she deleted, and the easiest way to do that is by reverting.

Yes I do know what reverting is. I would consider it edit warring if two people are going back and forth changing things back to what they think should be there as the two of you are doing. You are both edit warring. Yes reverting the edits is the easiest way to restore the content you think belongs, the best way is to do what I did and incorporate both sets of edits into the article. GB fan 19:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

Here is my assessment. There are two editors who have been edit warring, the unregistered editor and Deb. Deb wasn't notified of this discussion until a few hours ago, so that we don't know what she has to say. I know more than I want to know about the unregistered editor. There has been no discussion on the talk page, Talk: May 22 by either editor. Deb has been advised to discuss the unregistered edits rather than reverting them and to stop edit-warring. Because she was only recently notified, we need to wait for her response. The unregistered editor, by contrast, has repeatedly been advised to use edit summaries, to assume good faith by Deb, to desist from personal attacks, and to take a less confrontational approach. The unregistered editor has disregarded all advice and continues to be confrontational. This strikes me as arrogant, and the idle use of the term "vandalism" after being otherwise cautioned raises issues of whether the editor cares how Wikipedia works. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I notified Deb right after the discussion began last night. I also noted that on the thread at AN. I also notified the editor of the thread at ANI last night.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Recommend a Block

My thought is that the unregistered editor has had long enough to listen and has refused to listen, and needs a block. I would recommend an indefinite block for a registered editor who refuses to listen and is disruptive. For a Verizon IP address, which lasts about a week, a one-week block is in order, with the understanding that a proper unblock request (not another assertion of rightness) should be considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I have taken more time to discuss this situation with the editor and they simply refuse to listen. Alright.....we now have little choice but to discourage further behavior of this nature so...

• Strong Support block of one week - as discouragement for disruptive behavior and for failure or refusal to get the point per WP:IDHT.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Against block

You claim that I made personal attacks. Where is your proof? I did not make any personal attacks. All I did was suggest vandalism, and I dropped that suggestion after I discovered what Deb was doing was really disruptive editing. It seems extremely unfair that after going through all this, you guys ended up by suggesting to block me. I don't believe this is fair at all, and in the future, I may actually complain about your behavior, in threatening to use a block against me and not reading all my posts before making a reasonable response. This is directed at McClenon, who was so rude and hostile towards me. 71.202.1.48 (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"I don't believe this is fair at all, and in the future, I may actually complain about your behavior" I don't think threatening editors is going to help you. It is just a great deal more rope you are pulling on....--Mark Miller (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a threat. It's a warning.71.202.1.48 (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Odd that we would edit conflict on this at this point... but what are you talking about now and who is that directed to exactly? You seem not to know when to quit as my post was going to suggest closing this if there is no response...but now....I'll let you have as much rope as you need.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Support one week per the exchange above. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually read through the whole post?71.202.1.48 (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually have, and I've actually gone through Deb's talk page as well. As Mark said above, you're hanging yourself here. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Please explain your reasoning for supporting a block. Also, take a look at the diff pages if you haven't. Looking at Deb's talk page doesn't really provide adequate evidence. 71.202.1.48 (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Not that I have to justify any further, a good place to start is that you don't seem to be here for the right reason. You've been rude, hostile, and arrogant throughout pretty much this entire thread. You've developed an unnecessary vendetta against Deb and simply won't drop the stick. Instead of trying to speak with her directly, you immediately jumped here. That, in itself, in my opinion, is behavior unworthy of an editor. Deb's actions have been reviewed and she'll be spoken to upon her return to editing (I doubt you bothered to check to see if she's edited recently). I'd continue with more, but quite frankly, I'm annoyed just typing this out. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And how have I been rude, hostile, and arrogant? I was referred here by Mark Miller and some other admin. If you find it annoying just typing that out, imagine how much more annoyed I feel typing all the stuff I've written out. I did attempt to warn her by posting on her talk page. I have actually checked to see if she's edited recently (she hasn't), so please stop assuming things because you're wrong. 71.202.1.48 (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You've entirely proven my point for me. I'm done now - thank you :) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh have I? Because you haven't explained anything. Your reasons make no sense.71.202.1.48 (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you plan on making soup out of the horse you are pounding to a pulp?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Mark, I thought you didn't want to have anything to do with this anymore. You even told me not to post on your talk page. So why are you making snide remarks that don't help?71.202.1.48 (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - 71.202.1.48 has convinced me. Chillum 00:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Blocked, and for the week duration recommended by Robert. Note that the same IP address was blocked in June for the same reason; I'm about to ask the opinion of the blocking administrator. Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I wasn't here sooner - was away overnight. It is perfectly true that not everyone agrees with me about how to deal with recentism and USA-centricity on these pages, and yes, I've brought it up before, and it's been discussed and there is no consensus. The problem I had with the anon was not that he/she disagreed with me on that, but that he/she seemed to have a thing about May 22. Check out his/her contributions and they all have birthdates of May 22. In some cases, there is no evidence that the person in question was actually born on that date. The edit I rejected was just an undoing of my own edits with no explanation and I felt that the page was protected for a reason and an edit like that shouldn't be accepted, because it was basically a clumsy attempt to conceal the undoing. Deb (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2014 (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.

Deb's reasoning was not just that information was not verifiable (that is not a decline reasoning for Pending Changes) But that the information was BLP related (birth dates) and since there was no evidence of these dates being accurate they were a BLP concern. That seems to be what she is stating above and I endorse that action.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Serial block-evading, disruptive user on a spree

Can someone please block 90.201.155.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for more than 31 hours? He's on a massive edit war spree, and he's spreading his disruptive editing out to dozens of articles. He's already blocked as 2.220.251.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and he has a long history of evading blocks. He has been previously discussed in this community ban proposal, which resulted in a decision to file a long-term abuse case, which has not yet been posted. The discussion for that is ongoing at User talk:AddWittyNameHere#Martial arts vandal back again?. Previous reports to WP:AIV after level-4 warnings have resulted in short blocks which do nothing to stop his continuing disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: vandal has been blocked. I count over 80 articles in which this editor is currently engaged in edit wars, and that doesn't even count the vandalism that he dabbles in. There are a few people watching these articles, but we could use more eyes, especially from admins. This user has been disrupting martial-arts related pages for years now, and it's a pain to see him warned or lightly reprimanded when it's obvious that he's not going to stop. I'll try to see that the LTA case is filed soon. As an aside, is there a better place than AIV to report this user? Not all of his edits are vandalism, and many consist of pointless disruption, such as genre warring. ANEW seems poorly equipped to deal with this kind of widescale disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

After looking through the contributions and seeing the mass disruption - I'd support a block of at least one year. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that wouldn't really accomplish anything more than blocking for a week, as the vandal's dynamic IP address changes too often. Very short blocks (24 to 31 hours) don't really stop this user, but a week long block is usually enough to give us a temporary breather. I think one of the problems is that we don't have a long-term abuse report yet, but AddWittyNameHere is working on that. I don't know how to concisely summarize such widescale disruption (80 articles in one day) without overwhelming the admins with potentially irrelevant information. It seems like maybe I've been erring on the "too concise" side. Advice would be helpful. I guess I could post a brief LTA report myself while we wait for AWNH's more in-depth report. Would this be helpful to the admins? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I strongly apologize for the time it's taking me to create the full, in-depth report. Unfortunately, with frequently targeted articles ranging over a hundred and (to the best of my knowledge) at LEAST thirty different IP-addresses that have been in use by the editor, AND information from an old SPI archive and multiple ANI threads, as well as several types of problematic behaviour by this serial vandal that is not obviously problematic at first glance and may even look benign (though their current behaviour of revert-sprees is of course a bit more recognizable) it's a lot of work to get the proper documentation done. Every time I think I have everything that matters, I stumble upon yet new IPs in ranges I had not yet discovered, or a whole new cluster of articles, or slightly different behaviour that still warrants a description, etc. Add to that the difficulty of formatting a LTA report for a non-named user, the lack of proper tagging of the many IPs that have been used by him (many do not even have a clue in their block-log that it's him) meaning everything has to be double-checked and the sheer mass of edits involved... then there are a few cases that may or may not be him, because the typical edits are there but there are strong differences with his normal MO... And that's ignoring real life interference by means of health issues and the fact that I do spend time on Wikipedia doing other things than chasing this bugger down about four years of history on a hundred pages. Let's put it this way: collecting all information, selecting what is important and what is not, and noting it all down in a way understandable for those not familiar with him, has so far taken roughly eighty hours of time. @NinjaRobotPirate: Please go ahead and post a shortened version. I can't even give proper updates on how long it will take me to get everything done because of the sheer mass of edits, IPs and articles involved, and I'm too much of a perfectionist to upload a partial LTA report myself. (But maybe it'll be easier for me to add the stuff I already have when there already is a partial report in place anyway? We'll see. In any case, it won't hurt to have something to refer to) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandal is back

The vandal is back as 2.216.206.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and he has currently disrupted 50+ articles. Can someone block this account, too? He seems to use each IP address for several days before he's reassigned a new dynamic IP address, so a block of 72 hours would really be the minimum that is feasible to stop his disruption. I'll try to write up an LTA report. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

94.0.242.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also has similar recent unexplained serial edits/reverts to martial arts film articles, albeit only about 8 edits so far. Dl2000 (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Similar user is using numerous number of IP addresses to vandalize wikipedia pages.In order to stop his disruptive editing we have to block all IP addresses under his talk page.Or else make articles semi-protected (Articles he is interested in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChamithN (talk • contribs) 01:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Am currently editing from my boyfriend's home and pc, so I do not have access to the full set of information on the IP-vandal that I've gathered, but I've put up whatever I have easy access to in my userspace, at User:AddWittyNameHere/Martial Arts Film Vandal. At an estimate, I'm missing about 20-25% of his used IPs there (possibly more, or less, depending on how accurate my guess as to the number of so far undiscovered IPs is—I do know I have found a few in the past that I could not easily trace down right now and which I'll add once I'm at home); about 70% of his repeatedly edited articles; at least one other sockpuppeteer that he shows slight overlap with (but that, like the one I've already mentioned, I'm also reasonably certain is not, in fact, him—just someone he might be confused with); a more specific description of his behaviour;the set of illustrating diffs I have gathered; links to previous ANI-cases, an AN-case and an SPI-archive; the ranges his used IPs (or some, anyway, as I don't have the ranges for all of them yet) fall into; and quite probably other information. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Enough is enough.

I am totally sick from an IP self-identified as "Martin" (and I think the same user as User:Nitramrekcap) who is getting really annoying now.

Mr. Martin seems to have a severe problem with the fact I am a Dutchman living in Ireland. At least, he often rants about that fact. Beside that, Martin is busy with a slow edit war at List of Bloomsbury Group people, Ascension Parish Burial Ground and Cambridge Apostles where he keeps removing maintenance templates. Mr. Martin is often requested to give sources for his edits, what he seldom does. Instead, he claims that the fact are sourced in the article of the person involved. Even a minor check proves that that is in a fast majority not the case.

And know his behaviour is going even more down the drain. Just read for yourself:

• Talk:List of Bloomsbury Group people
• Talk:Ascension Parish Burial Ground
• Talk:Cambridge Apostles

There is no serious discussion. I am aware that there is a file on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:List of Bloomsbury Group people#The Bloomsbury Group, but as expected "Martin" does not take part.

By now, "Martin" was very quick in moving to another IP. Many warnings will be lost in cyberspace because of this. In my opinion the only solution to stop this is semi-protect List of Bloomsbury Group people, Ascension Parish Burial Ground and Cambridge Apostles plus a block for User:Nitramrekcap (when proven that he is identical). Last series of warnings at User talk:2.27.131.74.

Hope to hear soon. The Banner talk 20:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I protected List of Bloomsbury Group people which has clear indication of disruptive editing which becomes clear after reading the talk page), but unfortunately I do not have time now to check the other two articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• I blocked what I think is the latest IP. I do not oppose more protection, since this person is apparently pretty determined. General block rationale is edit warring, personal attacks, and general, well, acting like a total jerk. Banner here may well be a Dutchie but that don't make him wrong all the time. Banner, I will be happy to continue blocking if this reoccurs: the disruption in these articles has been noted by other editors as well. Kleine moeite, groot plezier. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I hope it works, but I doubt it. Just a little quote from the IP: U.K. WIKIPEDIA SHOULD BE FOR U.K. RESIDENTS? Ow????????? The Banner talk 00:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

In general:

• Mere IP block doesn't work, he takes another IP every time he edits (usually for less than 10 minutes):
  • 21 August 2014: 2.27.131.74 (talk · contribs)
  • 19 August 2014 (afternoon): 2.30.198.91 (talk · contribs)
  • 19 August 2014‎ (morning): 2.30.195.254 (talk · contribs)
  • 18 August 2014‎ (later afternoon): 195.194.238.104 (talk · contribs)
  • 18 August 2014‎ (early afternoon): 2.30.195.243 (talk · contribs)
  • ... etc ... see more complete list at User talk:Nitramrekcap#IP's
• See also discussion initiated by Martin at User talk:Jimbo Wales#"wikipedia isn't perfect, but its model is sound" FOR JIMMY WALES, CO-FOUNDER
• Tx for the semi-protection of List of Bloomsbury Group people — here are some more articles he has chosen to edit these last days:
  • Ascension Parish Burial Ground - IP's last edit: [75] (has been reverted)
  • Bloomsbury Group - IP's last edit: [76] (has been reverted)
  • Cambridge Apostles - IP's last edit: [77] (has been reverted)
  • Frederick Sanger - IP's last edit: [78] (has been reverted)
  • George Brownlee - IP's last edit: [79]
  • Order of Merit - IP's last edit: [80] (has been reverted)
• Would CheckUser be of any help here?

Tx again! --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• I semi-protected all but the Sanger and Brownlee articles, which seem less of a target. No, CU probably won't accomplish anything (we don't tie IPs to accounts), but an SPI is warranted since the IP hopping (without logging in) is a kind of evasion of scrutiny, and now that one IP is blocked any next one is guilty of block evasion, which one could call a type of socking. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Main account now indef-blocked. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack, deletion of sourced informations, edit-war and vandalism by 139.174.198.184

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.

---

139.174.198.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted the sourced informations many times despite the explanations.

His first attempt: 1 and later he deleted the sourced content 12 times. And he said to me "O.Ç." which means "son of a bitch" in Turkish-a shortcut for it- here. 149.140.40.10 (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:PERSONAL, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, WP:HA, WP:OWN and WP:VANDAL. 149.140.40.10 (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

A content-dispute/editwar and, apparantly, an unwillingness or inability to resolve it by means of dialogue seems more pressing than the occasional uncivil abbreviation. WP:DRN would be appropriate. Kleuske (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP who vandalised the article is already blocked by PhilKnight and the page is protected by another admin. So it can be closed and archieved. 149.140.10.166 (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2014 (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.

New editor with multiple problems, restoring copyvio, changing Yahweh to YHWH in perhaps 50 articles, etc.

User:Newmancbn is a new editor edit-warring over several religious articles, adding OR, restoring copyvio in at least one article after it was deleted by User:Diannaa (he responded to her warning with " You are not prejudice are you?" - he's also suggested other editors are racist). Everyone is entitled and in fact has a pov, but this editor is pushing it. There's been a long discussion at Talk:Israelites about RS, OR etc which he has basically ignored. I took him to AN3 earlier and wasn't planning to come here until I discovered that he's going through about 50 articles changing "Yahweh" to "YHWH" because he thinks that "Yahweh is a linguistically retarded estimation" and "linguistically insipid". He's been warned on his talk page by several editors and Admins besides me. His changes include [81] at Origins of Judaism where he changed "the worship of Yahweh" to "the worship of YHWH" which is a major content change, not a linguistic change. At Asherah he made a similar change (Canaanite deity to YHWH) which again is a major content change and changes to quotations. I haven't yet had time to go through all the articles he's changed. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I reverted his addition to Tetragrammaton, where he wrote in the middle of the article "his is an article from the Christian perspective and should use links to their terms." Not on the talk page, in the middle of an article. I'm thinking we need at least a topic ban covering at least Judeo-Christian topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Needs a block to slow him down. His edit notes and comments on talk are arrogant and claim personal authority on these matters; he doesn't seem to understand the importance of WP:VERIFY and WP:CONSENSUS and should be leashed until he does. Has aggressively made major changes and edit warred to keep them in. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Also edit-warring at The Exodus and Ipuwer Papyrus to insert a religious fringe theory. Zero^talk 14:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And Tetragrammaton, though he's quit re-adding the comment about the article being a Christian article. For the record, despite suggesting a topic ban, I'm fine if he's just indef'ed. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked them for 24 hours since they continued to edit destructively and got enough warnings. Anybody is welcome to overrule me and to reduce or to increase the duration of this block if there is consensus in this discussion to do so.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I really don't think that will change his behavior, although the block was clearly a good block. I'm also thinking a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the idea was to at least minimize the damage. A topic ban seems to be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a case to be made for YHWH, since no on knows how it was pronounced. Yahweh is a made-up word just as Jehovah is. However, convention has been Yahweh for a long time now, so an editor ought not defy consensus like a bull in a china shop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Is someone who's been registered since 2011, despite only editing sporadically, new? Blackmane (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Less than 50 edits prior to the spring of this year. Could be just now getting back into it, or could be an alternate account. Has any other editor been doing this during the last year or so? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Depends if we're looking at good hand bad hand accounts. It'd be quite painful to have to scour 50 articles if that is the case. Blackmane (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I did miss his earlier handful of edits. Hard to say whether he's made other edits using another account or IP. I've seen similar edits but couldn't trace them now, but they could be anyone. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban for Newmancbn

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 formally propose that Newmancbn be topic banned from all articles relating to the Tanakh/Old Testament, Abrahamic religions, and pre-Constantinian Mesopotamian, Levantine, and Mediterranean cultures, religions, civilizations, mythologies, and nations; due to his tendentious editing and edit warring in articles and talk pages such as Talk:Israelites, Ipuwer Papyrus, The Exodus, and Tetragrammaton; as well as repeated indications that he seeks to push a POV he believes to be "the" Christian one ([82], [83], [84]). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I would be open removing the Abrahamic religions from the topic ban provided he agrees to a 1rr ban on all articles, since the other portions cover what he's been messing with so far. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support I don't think a 1RR ban will stop him from the massive changes he's made, both quickly going through articles (he could do that daily), and the way he makes very large content changes with one edit and then covers the talk page with walls of text. His unblock request is basically "I'm right - you're wrong and prejudiced". Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, on second thought, it wouldn't really help. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support The change of Yahweh to YHWH is particularly inept. The man has zilch knowledge of the relevant linguistics (see my comment at Israelites) and yet blasts away at, what, 50 articles? One shouldn't be obliged to keep track on the mess trail left by editors of this full-bore calibre.Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support (uninvolved) One glance at the Talk:Israelites page is enough to see the exhausting walls of WP:OR reasoning and stubbornness. I shudder about what is happening in the 50 other pages. Kingsindian (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • CommentOr a look at his talk page now. His rant there led to a restart of the 24 hours. Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Not-here, tendentious editor whose lack of care for the project and aggressiveness cost me about an hour today, that I will not get back. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support per the above. Newmancbn's unblock request may have been a perfect example of WP:ROPE. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support, though I wonder how long before someone hands out a NOTHERE block. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - having read through all the relevant discussions it seems that Newmancbn has missed the point that this is not the place to right great wrongs. MarnetteD|Talk 04:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support– Even a slight improvement in editing behavior won't make this editor a useful contributor. Zero^talk 08:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Has deviating opinions, and thinks everybody is wrong. He reminds me of another user with similar edits and problems and almost the same username, some Lucas Newman, whose reincarnation he might actually be. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's looking like we've got a consensus here, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2014 (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.

@Newmancbn: Since the above conversation has been closed this belongs on your talk page underneath the notice that The Bushranger left you. I am going to suggest that you move it there. If you don't someone else may come along and do so - or they may remove it entirely. Just a suggestion and you may proceed as you wish but IMO this isn't helping your case. MarnetteD|Talk 00:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that threats of canvassing/meatpuppetry won't win you any points. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed. Bushranger the Zionist Israeli scholars I may be amassing would be qualified Israeli scholars from Hebrew University and Bar Ilan university so I don't think that is the same as 'meatpuppetry'/edit vandalism --Newmancbn (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

He's also breaking his topic ban at WP:AN. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:James Foley (photojournalist)

Hi - need neutral moderator help on talk page James Foley. See page history. Being used as a forum/soapbox for discussions Foley might not have been killed, CIA conspiracy etc... none of it supported by any source. Another editor and myself have been trying to remove this material on BLP and NOTAFORUM grounds, but are being reverted on grounds we don't have the right to delete someone's comments. -- GreenC 19:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you please point out the NOTAFORUM, BLP or other issue in my own comment on that talk page. The one where I mention that BLP applies to the article in relation to an IP user complaining about vandalism. Per, WP:TPO you do not have the right to blank large sections as you did. Martin451 19:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. Add back in selectively what you want rather than the whole bit and I can see what your mean. BTW I didn't do that mass removal that was someone else but supported it without taking the time to look through every comment to see if it might or might not cross the line, there may be some that can be restored. -- GreenC 19:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

So you made a large edit to a talk page, without checking to see what was removed. You now blame another person for this removal, and are not taking responsibility for your edit, instead reporting me. You have placed a wp:3rr template on my talk page after suggesting that I add parts back in. Martin451 19:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Martin451, you are now at 4 reverts. I don't think you should be blocked as yet but you need to work with people. There are clearly BLP and FORUM issues in that text, your constant restoring of that material wholesale is troublesome. -- GreenC 19:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is my fourth revert? Martin451 19:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

wrt. working with people. You removed a small section, Worldedixor then removed a large amount of text, including my comment. I reverted that text back in (first revert, followed by a dummy edit.) You then reverted me with the comment (Will take it to ANI if you keep it up. We have the right to remove BLP violations you don't have the right to misuse the talk page.) One revert and your threaten ANI action. That is not working with people. Martin451 20:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Martin451's comment is at the end of a chain of deletions. Someone started a thread ostensibly complaining about people showing up to call Foley a spy, assassin, and pedophile.. Then Martin451 says that maybe the people doing it are trolls. I Nobody is calling Foley that on the page. Perhaps that was deleted or the thread itself is a troll. Either way Wikipedia doesn't need anyone to talk about that on the article talk page, it is not discussion about improving the article. It's pretty typical when deleting a thread per WP:FORUM or BLP to delete the entire thread, including people admonishing the poster for using it as a forum, and people complaining about editor conduct, etc., because all those comments become meaningless if the original post is removed. So Martin451's comment got deleted in the cleanup. I don't think Martin should be restoring the objectionable thread just to preserve their own comment. If they have something to say and it's related to improving the article, best just start a new thread. I think the request that people stay on topic and not troll that talk page is already there, no need to repeat that. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried a different approach, as I have seen collapsing work better than outright deletes. Feel free to revert if you feel it is inappropriate. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou CombatWombat42. Martin451 20:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes - that works. Good idea. BLP will not apply much longer if at all so weird conspiracy speculation in collapsed threads is just fine. So we're done? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Wikidemon:, policy states that "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." So no. BLP will apply for quite a while. Dougweller (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Not an explicit legal threat, but perhaps an implicit one?[85] I thought it was at least worth bringing to your attention.

This[86] is what she's referring to; note that at least 2 users other than me have reverted her edits, too. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

They're skirting on the edge of it. Be sure the edit in question is supported by reliable sources. Then tell the user in question that legal threats are not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NLT this would fall under "Perceived legal threats" and might need admin assistance to clarify, but I have seen editors blocked for less and unblocked after retracting.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

This COI user is involved in an edit war at Venus Nicolino, and has just claimed to be the attorney of the article's subject[87], complete with a threat to sue if the (well-sourced) edits they object to are restored. Note that the user had been warned about legal threats.[88] cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The editor just also broke the 3RR rule, making a fourth revert [89] after being warned [90]. But that's probably irrelevant at this point, since the legal threat is very explicit and far more serious. --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Indeff block - blatant legal threat as well as a threat to edit war.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Done Indef'd per NLT. DMacks (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Taking WP:DOLT into consideration, I looked at the article the editor was clearly disputing the statement about Nicolino's struggles with psychopharmaceutical drugs. The sentence could be worded better IMO, and more reflective of the terms used by the sources. The sources do not outright state that she was "addicted" to the drugs. Also psychopharmaceuticals include drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and other illegal drugs. A tightening of the language would be helpful because the statement doesn't make it clear that the drugs either prescription or illegal. —Farix (t | c) 14:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Need help with "Brian Thompson" vandal

An IP editor is back that continues to replace the CEO and other leaders of various companies with "Brian Thompson" (see here with Dodge and here with Chevrolet.) This user has done this in the past, too, and uses multiple IP addresses. Any help in blocking this vandal would be appreciated. Bahooka (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/86.41.152.149

Special:Contributions/86.41.152.149 Unhelpful edits, and targetted personal attacks against one user - see comments in edit summary. Finishes with [91] (I will revert the edits to the articles, up to present)Prof.Haddock (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I beat you to the reversions. Perhaps someone may want to speak with Oranjblud as well. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Refusal of "dubious" tag on a citation

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 the article "Materialization (Paranormal)", user "LuckyLouie" refuses to let the "dubious" tag on his citation, removing it every time it is added. His citation is used to infer that materialization, in the paranormal sense, entails a violation of mass-energy conservation. On the contrary, from a basic physics perspective, paranormal or not paranormal, the production of new matter is allowed by laws of physics and does not lead to a violation of mass-energy conservation as long as new energy is used and converted into matter. The editor not only refuses to let the "dubious" tag, but would also refuse to discuss in the talk page why he believes his citation makes sense. He only declares that adding such a tag requires a consensus, you can check the talk page. Paranormal claims are clearly unproven, but this is not a reason to bring fallacious pseudoscientific explanations to invalidate them either. Thanks.Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to make things even clearer: the citation is from a book of Manuel Vasquez, who is NOT a scientist but a professor of business ethics at Santa Clara University.Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This is ANI - are you asking for the editor to be blocked? Because if you aren't, perhaps you need to go to WP:RSN to discuss the source. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am asking him to be blocked, because he had many opportunities to explain his case but declined to do so. He never justified his citation nor his words. Instead, he would simply delete any form of challenge, including a simple "Dubious" tag. This is not what I call a correct attitude and this has lasted for too long. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that seems to be under discussion on the article talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not under discussion: nobody discusses the content themselves. The only "explanations" are about Wikipedia procedures, as if nobody really cared about the problem. Deleting "dubious" tag and posting in the talk page that articles needs consensus and that I should go edit other articles than this one is not what I call a discussion. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. You can't prevent people from flagging real problems with an article on the grounds that they didn't have consensus to add a tag. That would lead to fanboys and cranks squatting on poorly sourced, dubious articles, shutting down any attempt to fix problems with them. Reyk _YO! 09:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I very much suggest participants in this thread leave the procedural side alone and do the math (per Einstein) on a materialisation with a mass of 1 gram or even 1 milligram. Labeling "LuckyLouie" a fanboy or a crank because he did, is not the way to any form of consensus that actually makes sense. Kleuske (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the talk page, you are not proving anything because (1) you talk about "1 milligram" as if it was a little, but nothing in the literature seems to mention a specific weight, so could be lower (2) you assume a complete generation of matter from energy, without reuse of the medium body nor the surrounding air, which is, too, not mentioned in the literature. And most authors talk about the formation of something "fluidic", so that would mean that materialization of spirits are more like plasmas in physics. I let you compute how much energy is required to ionize air and make it glow in a complete darkness, i.e. in typical spiritism settings. Of course it is dramatically lower than what you imply in your comment. My point here is that we don't know anything for sure about those materializations, if alone if they exist, so we cannot assume a violation of energy conservation. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's pseudoscientific bullshit what does it matter?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you implying that because the article is about "pseudoscientific bullshit" we are free to write any nonsense, including things that are contrary to laws of physics just in order to disprove it? I'm not sure falsifying pseudoscience with pseudoscience is the appropriate response. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No I'm implying that you need to find something better to do with your time than argue whether or not the rules of physics apply to something that doesn't exist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Err right. Thank you for your input. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Might I point out that this is not a forum for discussion of the topic. I agree RSN is the correct place for this issue. Shouldn't the article in question have a discretionary sanctions flag? A disregard for pointers to the appropriate policies and guidelines seems to greatly diminish the allegations of the filing editor (to the point of WP:BOOMERANG perhaps). And I added a second source. - - — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBill3 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 22 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Your source does not relate to paranormal materialization per se. I have been forbidden to make "original synthesis" by mentioning existing physical processes that allow the production of matter on the ground it was not specifically cited as paranormal materialization, so there is no reason you would post original synthesis either. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe WP:BOOMERANG should apply here. The whole activity of Anaphylaxis2014 around this article was to call people names (he also called me a kid who needs to study physics lol) and trying to push inside the article a nonsense paragraph. When he realized there was no consensus he proceeded with the tag, and is currently at three reverts within 4h and four reverts within 30 hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Quoting Ymblanter: " it is bullshit, and they apparently have difficulties understanding 1st year physics curriculum" (they = me). So if you want to accuse me of something, check your own side first. Please explain me what is the "nonsense" part of my paragraph, because the only reason it was removed was that it was "original synthesis". So much about distorting the truth. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Now at 5RR. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess everybody should relax a bit. As pointed by several others, this is a content dispute; not an action requiring a direct block. It should also be noted that, there are several other editors who think/act the same as Luckylouie in this matter. Had the source by Velasques contain any attribution to "paranormal materialization" or even just "materialization" in page 84, there would be no issue to discuss. If I'm not mistaken, there is only a discussion of "how can a supposedly immaterial mind control a material body" within the context of dualist view, in that page 84. On the other hand, -now been removed- second source added by MrBill3 serves the purpose, even if it might not be directly addressing "paranormal materialization". Readers can click on the source and see the scope of the article, and decide whether the scope can also cover paranormal or not. Actually the wording in Materialization_(paranormal)#Scientific_views does not necessitate such. Not OR to me. Logos (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that if you consider the wording does not necessitate the citation to specifically address paranormal materialization, I would appreciate that someone explain me why mentioning physical processes that allow the production of matter (for example the conversion of light into matter) was deleted on the ground it was original synthesis. I was told that I was the one making a connection between paranormal materialization and those existing and well known physical processes. So whether we can cite articles that are scientific but not addressing paranormal per se, or we cannot. But allowing one and prohibiting the other seems quite unfair to me. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Anaphylaxis2014 blocked 24 hours for edit-warring per this report at WP:3RRNB. Edit-warring over the placement of a tag is still edit warring. ANI is not the venue to resolve content disputes. Zad68 12:27, 22 August 2014 (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.

---

Trapdoor5252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has threatened to file contempt charges against me, in order to prevent me from travelling internationally (?), on my user page.[92] Trapdoor5252 has given me 24 hours to revert this edit of mine,[93] though they had actually reverted my edit themself, and in turn been reverted by another user who agreed with me - that Trapdoor5252 is adding negative unsourced information without explanation. I won't edit the Colin Winchester page again, but Trapdoor5252 has been reverted by at least two users other than me, so the edit war and legal threats might continue. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Pretty clear legal threat. Given the underlying content dispute, however, I think this is a WP:DOLT situation where we should consider whether the issue that led to the legal threat has merit. The issue is, evidently, the statement in Colin Winchester that David Harold Eastman was convicted of Winchester's murder, but that this conviction was later overturned/quashed. Trapdoor inserted the term "falsely" before "convicted" in the Winchester article. While a clarifying statement may be inserted in that sentence (such as "this conviction was later overturned"), there doesn't seem to be any grounds for the term "falsely", and the entire drama of Eastman's appeal is pretty thoroughly described in the section immediately following that statement. I think this is fine. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There is also the issue of adding, in the lede, that Winchester was "corrupt" and a "known drug dealer." This was unsourced, so it seemed like a pretty clear NPOV violation. It might be true, I have no idea without a source, so assuming good faith, I left a "Welcome! But please source your edits!" message on Trapdoor's talk page. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

He's currently at 4 reverts as well. And this revert, where he changes the characterization of Winchester's killing from "murder" to "execution" is pretty blatant POV pushery. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely by Tide rolls. Good work. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2014 (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.

Alex Belfield

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.

---

Please could I request that an administrator looks at the recent history of the article on Alex Belfield. In the month of August this year the article has suffered from repeated disruptive editing by IP users, who persistently remove fully cited references with raw urls and change consistent date formats into inconsistent date formats. The IP users also regularly change his surname "Belfield" to "Alex" and introduce unsourced and poorly sourced promotional style content into the article. Would it be appropriate for me to request page protection for this article? Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It would. I have semi-protected the article for two weeks. If this recurs, the place to request protection is WP:RFPP. Although disruptive, I don't think the IP edits were intended as vandalism, and I see that they have not been given any warnings or explanation. I will do that. JohnCD (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for you assistance with this. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2014 (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.

Advice of images please

I posted a request a couple of days ago at Wikipedia:AN#Advice_on_images_please but I have not gotten a reply nor any advice on how to proceed. I want to continue to assume good faith with this editor but after their response at User_talk:PNGWantok#Copyright, I'm not sure how to proceed. They are claiming that the images are different. They are the same but the photo they have uploaded has been reversed. I see they have uploaded many other photos too. Most of these need looking at too. I am reasonably new and have spent the last week reading policies and guidelines, but I could do with some advice here please. PNGWantok (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The dead giveaway as to which one is the original is that you can read the word "Wenger". On the one the guy uploaded to Wikipedia, of course, the word is reversed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes User:Baseball Bugs that is what made me enquire about how to approach this. The editor is saying that they will upload another photo. I have looked at their other uploads at Special:ListFiles/Wapacman, and I see many others. All of the photos are small in size. None have proper EXIF. This has EXIF stating the file was last change in December 2013, but the information template says it was taken on 1 August. Because the editor insists that the photo I enquired about is theirs, when that does not appear to be the case, how should I approach the issue on how to deal with the other photos which are likely copyright violations. Your advice would be appreciated. PNGWantok (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here but there's a photo with exif that mentions some Adobe software, and has a timestamp corresponding to the edit date, which is understandably different than when the picture was taken. So an AGF interpretation would be tha like the person took the photo, cleaned it up or edited it a bit with the Adobe program, and uploaded the edited version. It might be nice to have the camera original, both to check the dates (note though that those are easy to fake) and for remix purposes; but on the other hand the person might not want to upload it, since it can have potentially private info like the camera serial number or other identifying characteristics. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm missing something too. Like what on earth has this got to do with ANI?  Philg88 ^♦talk 22:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the same image with some enhancements and horizontal mirroring. The EXIF data isn't all that big a deal on its own; the big issue is the mirroring and alterations taken with the uploader's claim that it's a different image by a different photographer. Those sorts of alterations might be done to hide the source for privacy reasons, but it's also one way to try to keep automated copyvio discovery programs from finding it (I don't know how effective it is though). I think it's discretionary whether to go with {{db-f11}} or {{db-f9}}. The fact that the uploader is lying about the image makes me lean towards F9 (it's simply not credible that someone who is an uploader AND author would make an honest mistake about the image being mirrored versus a different image by a different person). AGF is good and all, but there are limits. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, OK, the issue is that File:HIFI_Festival.jpg is obviously the same picture as [94] after being cropped and flipped, while the uploader says it's a different picture. Yeah the explanation is surprising and I think it's best to ask the uploader for further clarification and/or contact the the historicfilipinotown organizer to ask where the picture is from. It's not ok for someone to claim they took a picture themselves if they didn't, so if this can't be sorted with the uploader then we may may have a bigger problem than yet another jacked picture (added: I see now that this has happened with several other images from the person). That all said, requiring OTRS permission for uploads in general is news to me. I've submitted a few off-wiki pictures for upload through WP:FFU and nobody said anything about OTRS. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I would only say that we do not need to contact anyone. If the editor cannot, or refuses to show permissions, than we don't need to go chasing after the image to save it. F-9 and move on. No one is going to mention OTRS until there is a question....there is a question and a refusal to document to copyright. So...I feel we have a clear enough reasoning to delete.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

At this point it's not about deleting a doubtful picture. It's about whether we should block the user. That requires a higher level of evidence than just being unsure of where the picture came from. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I could certainly support a temp block...but no, it is not what the OP was asking. The thread is for advice on images.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't want to get the editor into trouble if there is something they can do to avoid it. I only want advice on how to deal with these issues when they arise. I initially asked in #wikipedia a few days ago and was told to post here. I asked in #wikipedia-en-help and they helped me. Can we please delete this thread as the issue seems to be resolved? Thank you all PNGWantok (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support F-9 If the image is on the internet elsewhere (reverse or not) the file requires permissions via OTRS regardless of whether the author is the editor or not.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Important note: Based on the opener of this discussion asking on IRC, I've found and deleted at least 12 (yes TWELVE) blatant copyright violations by this user. They have very simple tactics: horizontally film image, crop, distort, etc. photos. Most of which I've had to pull into an image editing tool to find the copyvios and I haven't found one for every image uploaded. That being said, over 50% of the users upload's are copyvios and while they are claiming the images "were taken from different angles." I've given the uploader a final warning on their talkpage and if we see another uploaded copyvio, the uploader should be blocked immediately. I have half a mind to delete the rest of the uploads based on the pattern of copyvios. You can see his deleted images in his upload log Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Based on this, I think we should consider all the editor's uploads tainted, delete and indef. Copyvio because someone doesn't understand copyright is one thing, copyvio and taking steps to cover it up is something completely different. I'm of the opinion that this sort of conduct is worse than vandalism. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Mendaliv is unfortunately probably right, unless some convincing explanation is forthcoming that I don't see as likely. We can't go around investigating every new upload from the user. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

ChrisP2K5

ChrisP2K5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Addition of unsourced content to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show) ([95]):

• No source for "...Judge Judy, which had been removed from the WCBS lineup two years prior when WNBC-TV picked it up."
• No source for "...as most of those stations filled those slots with talk shows, court shows, or syndicated reruns. BVT asked WCBS to reconsider, but they did not", and added in-between a statement referenced by the cite news link that is now after the unsourced statement
• No source for "...with the only exceptions being WLS-TV and KABC-TV (the show airs on WPWR and KNBC in those markets)."

User has recently been warned multiple times for adding unsourced content to other articles:

• Warning 14 June 2014
• Warning 1 July 2014
• Warning 2 July 2014

And for warned for disruptive behavior in other recent edits:

• Removing sourced content 30 June 2014
• vandalism/edit warring 1 July 2014
  • 3RR noticeboard incident
• Edit warring 19 July 2014
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive249#User:ChrisP2K5 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Protected)

User repeatedly blocked between in 2008 and 2009 for edit warring and disruptive editing. Blocked indefinitely 9 April 2010, but given a second chance 27 September 2011 following multiple requests to be unblocked (User talk:ChrisP2K5/Archive6#Notification). Within four months of unblock, user warned again for adding unreferenced information.

Following unblock in 2011, user has clearly evidenced a long-term pattern of disruptive behavior and despite multiple warnings and 3RR noticeboard incidients, continues to engage in disruptive editing. AldezD (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

millionairetv.com is my source for listings. The Hollywood Reporter article cited clearly states WCBS was asked to consider another timeslot and it's clear they did not do so because the show left. The TV listings confirm Judge Judy had been airing on WNBC. I don't see the issue here, at least not with the first two facts. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

We're well past the point on this wiki where it's okay to add unsourced content to the articles. Please add your sources when you add new content or make extensive changes to existing content. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the info he removed was properly cited, at least where the airing stations and dropping of the show were concerned (which, as I said, is in the article). Since I don't currently have a guide to cite regarding Judge Judy, I'll withdraw my position until I do. And apologize for the editorializing regarding what was left. I will properly cite the millionairetv.com entry, but challenge the removal of the consideration request made by BVT because evidence already cited in the article says it happened. I will quote the portion of the article. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The user has been around for well over five years (including blocked time). The user knows what is expected and what is appropriate behavior. Despite this, the user continues to make unsourced edits even after multiple warnings and does not follow WP:V. At what point is the disruptive behavior stopped? Is the user WP:COMPETENT to be a contributing member? AldezD (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The edits in this case were properly sourced, with the noted exception. Bears repeating. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I know nothing of the current dispute, but I wanted to add that there was a lengthy DRN which the user promptly violated and had to be warned repeated to stop (see past user talk page discussions here and here). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the current discussion, and I said in the DRN that I did not support the wording. Rewording the info, which I left intact otherwise, does not constitute a violation. You were also cited for multiple violations in that discussion. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, hold on a minute. I was under the impression that the Millionaire local listing page had been taken down when AldezD challenged my sourcing of it claiming that WLS and KABC don't air Millionaire. The dropdown menu on the page says the show airs on WPWR in Chicago and KNBC in Los Angeles. If you cross-reference every O&O ABC has with the cities listed in the dropdown menu, you'll see that WPVI, KGO, KTRK, and WTVD all air the series. I can't help that there's no actual list, but the dropdown is the same as a list and it supports my contention, so what's really going on here? Even the Hollywood Reporter piece, which I introduced into the article to begin with if I'm not mistaken, clearly states that BVT sought a reconsidering of WCBS' position and since Millionaire switched stations the next season, it seems clear enough that the attempt failed. It's the last sentence before the cutoff. The only issue to me here is the inclusion of the Judge Judy piece and as I said, I withdraw until I can find sourceable info. So again, what's really going on here? --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the user's comment "The edits in this case were properly sourced, with the noted exception. Bears repeating.": The edit made by the user was not properly sourced. In this ANI the user mentions the drop down at millionairetv.dadt.com/local-listings/ as the source, but that source is not linked in the sections edited by the user. Even if that source was intended to be used for those edits, because the information is not static on the page and requires another user to verify information, some sort of notation discussing the dropdowns would likely be required using parameters within Template:Cite web.
• Regarding the user's comment "Since I don't currently have a guide to cite regarding Judge Judy, I'll withdraw my position until I do.", the user has been warned three times within the past 90 days about adding unsourced content prior to this ANI. Withdrawing and/or claiming it was inappropriate to add that content to the target article only during the process of this ANI does not negate the fact that the user has engaged in a pattern of disruptive behavior despite multiple warnings and earlier blocks.
• Even while this ANI discussion is going on—which is specific to the user's pattern disruptive behavior of adding unsourced information—the user made additional unsourced edits:
  • Reintroduced unsourced information to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show) (specifically, contestants participating and amounts won by those contestants) that was earlier removed by another editor.
  • Introduced unsourced information to Clifton, New Jersey about George Bayeux, who is not discussed elsewhere in the article, as well as added a cause of death for Richard Stockinger.

AldezD (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

None of the three edits on Millionaire done on 20 August (diff, diff, diff) included the addition of any sources. In fact placing new content immediately before an existing citation gives the illusion that the material has a citation when it may actually be unsourced. The presence of supporting citations elsewhere in the article is irrelevant; each piece of content should have a supporting citation immediately following. That's the current standard we are striving for, in our goal to become a world-class resource for our readers. ChrisP2K5, what you need to do is to start following that standard on every edit you undertake. That's the desired outcome of this report. Will you make a commitment to do that? -- Diannaa (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree at all that this is the desired outcome of this report. I believe the desired outcome is for AldezD to have me permablocked from editing. I find it just a little unsettling that he reverted an edit I made to my hometown's page. That's bordering on stalking, and I'm not going to accept that.

I think that my additions to the article, especially with the cited info, prove that I have already made that commitment and my complete history of editing will show that.

The last two edits you cited were largely a rewording of information that was already cited and in the article.

As far as the Tournament of Ten thing goes, there were ten participants and considering I'm the one who added much of that information in the first place, specifically the list of the participants which I found through the about.com article, I don't see why it's irrelvant to the article to list the people who qualified, considering that it was the first time Millionaire did something like that.

The info on the station list is reference #77. The info on the entire WCBS/Millionaire debate, including the asking for consideration which they obviously didn't get and had to move to another station, is marked as reference #75. As far as the readding of the time slot info, I removed it in advance of WABC changing its daytime lineup and moving Millionaire out of that 12:30 slot, which they've announced but haven't made official yet (they've begun airing commercials to that effect, but DADT hasn't changed the schedule info yet and likely won't until the move is made official), and thus it's ceasing to be accurate. I think my commitment to improving the wiki is more than made clear, if one is willing to take my entire editing history into account. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• "I find it just a little unsettling that he reverted an edit I made to my hometown's page. That's bordering on stalking, and I'm not going to accept that."—Further evidence of WP:BATTLE, an issue that lead to the user's earlier permanent block in 2010. AldezD (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(What would you call it then? --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC))

• "I think that my additions to the article, especially with the cited info, prove that I have already made that commitment and my complete history of editing will show that."—The user's edit history clearly shows a pattern of making unsourced edits, even after the ANI was opened. AldezD (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(I said my complete history, you're cherrypicking. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC))

• "The last two edits you cited were largely a rewording of information that was already cited and in the article."—Again, the user fails to understand that edits containing new information must be referenced. The user added information to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show) and Clifton, New Jersey without citing references. AldezD (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(I wasn't talking to you. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC))

• "As far as the Tournament of Ten thing goes, there were ten participants and considering I'm the one who added much of that information in the first place, specifically the list of the participants which I found through the about.com article, I don't see why it's irrelvant to the article to list the people who qualified, considering that it was the first time Millionaire did something like that."—Again, WP:COMPETENCE, as the user fails to understand that information needs to be sourced.

AldezD (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

--...which, if you could have been bothered to look, was. I introduced the info to the page with proper citation some time ago. The rest of my responses to you are noted in parentheses above. You made a claim I was adding unsourced data, I'm showing you where the sources are, that they were there beforehand, that I withdrew anything that might cause a problem, and that you jumped the gun. And instead of admitting your error in judgment and apologizing, you're continuing to badger me over it.

As far as the sources you're so desperate for, you're welcome regarding two thirds of that. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• "you're cherrypicking", "I wasn't talking to you", "you're continuing to badger me over it"—further evidence of the user's WP:BATTLE pattern of disruptive behavior. AldezD (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • When making edits that add unreferenced information, the user continues to claim references are either already in the article or were once there and had later been removed, but the user fails to understand basic principles of WP:V, and that any information added to the article must either accompany a reference or be tagged using WP:NAMEDREFS. AldezD (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but where in the already cited sources is the info I have lacking? The dropdown menu on the already cited local listings page says Millionaire airs on every ABC O&O outside of two, as I've said. That's indisputable. The Hollywood Reporter article, which I added to the page some time ago, says that BVT made a request to WCBS to reconsider the dropping and since they sold Millionaire to WABC, the request proved unsuccessful. That's indisputable. And thus meets the verifiability criteria. You ARE cherrypicking information to support your case, I was talking to User:Diannaa and not you in the second portion of the argument, and if you aren't continuing to badger me over these two and the tournament of ten pieces that you falsely claim are uncited,.then what are you doing? I don't understand why we're still having this discussion and ask an admin to close it because all AldezD is doing is recycling the same three sourced items he claims are uncited and using them to try to get me permablocked because he wasn't successful in doing so over an earlier incident where he insisted on leaving inaccurate information on The Joker's Wild page because of difficulty with a potential COPYVIO violation. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here is a lack of understanding on your part of the need to add citations whenever you add content. The fact that you're denying that you added unsourced content shows that you still don't understand what you are doing wrong. I repeat: Every time you add content, you need to add a citation to your source. If the source is already used elsewhere in the article that's fine, use the same source again. If you don't know how, please refer to the content guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources, and for re-using sources, there's info at Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. Could you please make a commitment to do this in the future? -- Diannaa (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know about using the same source more than once. I've done it multiple times before on various articles, and know how to use it. But here's the issue that I don't think you understand. I'm contending that when I'm using the source in the same sentence (as the Millionaire listing page and the request made by Buena Vista TV), to cite it twice back to back is redundant. If there is a significant gap, then sure, I'll note it more than once. But in the same sentences there's no point. If I'm doing something wrong by doing that I'll try to steer clear of it in the future, and please let me know if I'm not steering clear. Bottom line, the station list is cited properly, the tournament is cited properly, and all the info I could glean from the WCBS fiasco is cited properly. If there's info in there that's challengeable (which these are not), then it should be removed until it can be verified. That's the way I see it and I think that we all should see it this way and close the discussion. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• "When I'm using the source in the same sentence (as the Millionaire listing page and the request made by Buena Vista TV)"—That source was not in the sentences the user revised in the edits from 20 August. (Yes, they were. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC))
• "The station list is cited properly"—No reference to the station list was included in the user's edit.(It was already referenced, there wasn't a need to do it again. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC))
• "To cite it twice back to back is redundant"—This is the crux of the issue and why WP:NAMEDREFS is used. (So if I put something that's already cited by a reference in the sentence where it is, why is it not redundant if I re-cite it? ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC))

After multiple requests by an admin to commit to adding references, the user acknowledges the request and agrees to comply—then changes position in the same response and says it is not necessary and/or redundant to include named references when making edits that (in the user's opinion) are supported by citations elsewhere in the article. AldezD (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC) (It's not my opinion that the articles say something that can be cited as factual, it's right there in black and white. If the source has more information than listed and I can add the info directly to the already in place info without having to create a separate paragraph for it and rehash the reference, why shouldn't I do that? It saves time and trouble and keeps the page from getting cluttered. That's the crux of the issue. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC))

ChrisP2K5, if you add content to the same sentence that already has the source at the end of the sentence, you don't need to add the source again. But you could mention your source in the edit summary. If the source is already present in the article, please use named refs, as already discussed. If the source is a new one, add the source at the time you add the content. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

In the future I will be more vigilant with that. And obviously if I have new source material I'll add it when I edit. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Crossing outs and changing names without providing citations

Hey there I want to inform that 78.86.173.85 keeps crossing names of articles even after I warned him.He also changed names of some articles without providing valid references.Here are some links kept crossing out name even after I warned him Look at his contributions you can clearly see that he is not trying improve those pages. other articles:

1. Difference between revisions
2. Thorney Island: Difference between revisions
3. Poole: Difference between revisions
4. Airport: Revision history
5. Airfield: Revision history

He edited many more articles.I hope you would look into this and provide a solution.ChamithN (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The diffs are coming out malformed on my side, so I've fixed them below:

• "he kept crossing out name even after I warned him"

1. Larkhill (#1) (He's been doing the same edit back and forth for a few days.)
2. RAF Thorney Island (A bit different than the diff provided above)
3. RM Poole
4. Farnborough Airport
5. Hullavington Airfield

- Purplewowies (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The same editor appears to have used IP addresses 78.86.173.81 and 94.193.131.4 (see history of Hullavington Airfield article). ISP and location are same or similar to this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Long-term unsourced additions by an IP 94.193.131.142 which resulted in a 2-week block - also similar in undoing their own edits, sometimes repeatedly (78.86.173.85 on Hullavington Airfield, 94.193.131.142 on HMS Agamemnon (S124) and other 94.193 IPs on Bere Alston railway station). Peter James (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please block this user from editing.He is so annoying and keeps undoing reverts.We already warned him like 5 times yet he still keeps vandalizing pages.Also I notified him that we are having a discussion about him.ChamithN (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It now appears the user has moved to "78.86.173.249". They have not been notified they are discussed here on this new IP address. Gavbadger (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Rangeblocks. Well, I think that's all right about the notification, Gavbadger; people can can hardly be expected to chase after this IP-flitter to notify them all over the shop. Very strange edit pattern, the way those IPs keep reverting themselves (and each other), over and over. If this was a new account trying to get autoconfirmed, I'd understand it, but from an IP it makes no sense. Anyway, it's clearly not constructive. I went to block 78.86.173.85, 78.86.173.81, 78.86.173.249, 94.193.131.142 and 94.193.131.253, but it seemed a bit pointless. They're supposedly static, but I'm still not sure I'd be doing any good; it's obviously all the same individual, who is comfortably able to change between any number of "static" IPs. :-( The good news is that the ranges are very small: 78.86.173.0/24 and 94.193.131.128/25. I've rangeblocked them both for one month. Checking this tool shows that the rangeblock also catches 78.86.173.131 and 78.86.173.249, who have been doing lots of exactly the same kinds of edits today. Very busy individual! Please feel free to alert me if you see more IPs, or if these ranges resume after the month is up. Thank you all for these helpful reports. Bishonen | talk 22:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC).

Penis picture on the "Ice bucket Challenge" page!!!

Hello,

Please have the picture removed from the ice bucket challenge! Its' the first picture that pops up on the page when you open it! It's terrible!

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.140.201.50 (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Was quickly reverted, and the editor responsible for adding that image blocked for vandalism. DMacks (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

And the image has been added to WP:Image blacklist.--v/r - TP 21:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

...and such is the effect of an ice bucket on a penis. the panda ₯’ 21:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

... spoken like an expert (?) Let's hope that fad doesn't go viral. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Shrinkage?Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hey *****, if that was you, tsk tsk! Drmies (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Same image added by (already blocked) User:Jones 8842 a few days ago, both calling themselves Jones. Martin451 23:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

New user making edits on Israel-Palestine pages

New user Litalbn1 is making many changes to I/P related articles, like changing nationality of Yasser Arafat from Palestinian to Egyptian here, inserting massive POV pushing here and moving pages here with the edit summary " Headline is not connecters fully to the page content. The name Palestine didn't exist in 3000 years ago and thus it doesn't represent the entire ar".

Something should be done before he does more damage. Kingsindian (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

'Something' should probably begin with a post on the new user's talk page, explaining why this is wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I just did, sorry, after posting here. But there is lots of stuff he did which I have to revert. Kingsindian (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You are also supposed to notify someone if you start a thread on them here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, just did. I am not too comfortable with this. I kind of panic-reacted by seeing so many contributions. Luckily, they are not too widespread, so perhaps some simple talking to him might suffice. If you want, you can close this discussion. Kingsindian (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

In general Andy is correct. In a case like this however, things are difficult because the edits are clearly POV yet the topic is under WP:1RR which makes it hard for others to handle (and it's very hard to take the time to explain all the arbitration background to the steady stream of new editors in this area). I just left the standard discretionary sanctions notification. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Edumacater

User:Edumacater a new contributor, has been spamming multiple articles with conspiracy-theory material concerning the Rothchilds, the French revolution, the Illuminati and similar nonsense, either unsourced, or (after being warned about unsourced additions [96]), citing a crackpot conspiracy website [97] I'll not bother with diffs, as Edumacater's entire edit history is sufficient in itself to demonstrate that s/he is WP:NOTHERE and needs to be shown the door. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Administrator. I have not violated any of the terms of services of wikipedia, and I am well within my rights to post factual information. If posters do not like my information, they are welcome to remove parts of it that they say is untrue. It is a violation of my rights as a user of wikipedia to be "shown the door" as the arrogant user above states. If he has a problem with facts that he doesn't like, Wikipedia is not the website for him. (Edumacater) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edumacater (talk • contribs) 10:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be under a fundamental misapprehension as to the purpose of Wikipedia. You have no 'rights' to do anything here - this is a privately-owned website, and individuals are permitted the privilege of contributing only as long as they do so in the interests of the encyclopaedia. And filling it with the same old half-baked conspiracy-nonsense that has been crawling the sewers of the 'civilised' world for the last few hundred years certainly isn't doing anything remotely encyclopaedic. Sadly, there are still plenty of forums where such drivel is considered acceptable - I suggest you find one, and slither off there, where you will no doubt feel at home... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Edumacater:: Although the word "right" really has no place, as a member of this community, you do have the ability to suggest edits to try and obtain wP:CONSENSUS for them. This ability remains yours as long as a) the suggested edits are properly sourced to a provider that is considered by the community to be reptutable, and b) as long as other community members concur that the edits belong. Also, we do not necessarily accept "truth" (it's so subjective), we accept verifiable. By submitting anything, you agree that it might be rejected. You also have agreed to the Bold, Revert, Discuss process as a way to achieve consensus, with the understanding that in the long run, your specific edits to a topic may never be accepted by consensus. the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems I had with Edumacater is that his text additions are too often inserted without context, breaking the flow and introducing irrelevancies. This is an outstanding example of how a sentence of Illuminati stuff was slapped onto an otherwise Illuminati-free article. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

So pointless: just like Chuck Norris, the Illuminati are actually a part of every single Wikipedia article, even if they're not specifically mentioned the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked as not here to help build an encyclopedia, along with the 90.180.82.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) IP, which makes very similar edits. The history of Frankfurt am Main is especially suggestive in regard to the IP: note that the account User:Edumacater was created 16:09 UTC, between here and here. Bishonen | talk 05:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC).

Scholarly referenced content is being removed on Shudra

This is with reference to this discussion on Talk:Shudra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shudra#Scholarly_referenced_content_on_this_page_is_being_removed.

I have taken the discussion to its logical conclusion. The editor @Sitush: instead of considering the research evidence provided is reverting the edits made by me. The article involves contentious material, including the use of the word "untouchable", a word considered illegal by article 17 of Indian constitution, and needs to be reverted to my cautiously phrased, neutral and evidence-backed edit. Since any change I make to this page would be reverted by this editor and his friends, who collectively act as a vested interest, to denigrate a large mass of Indian population (it has been a victim of oppression for centuries) which the Mandal Commission set up by Indian government estimates as constituting 52% of the Indian population. I think a bunch of editors promoting "racism" and "discrimination" on wikipedia is a serious problem and needs to be tackled at the earliest. Since I have already spent a lot of time and energy in convincing this editor who has no research backing his claims, and who makes sloppy statements like "we have spoken to a few lawyer-type people, they have told us the use of the word 'untouchable' does not constitute a crime" when I give him links to the article in the constitution (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1987997/)as well as an Encyclopedia Britannica entry (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/618508/untouchable) I think responsible administrators should intervene and stop this horrible misuse and abuse of wikipedia by vested interests.

See diffs

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shudra&diff=621632984&oldid=621632225

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shudra&diff=621633114&oldid=621633059

My final edit every statement of which is backed by research evidence, some provided in the article itself and some provided on Talk:Shudra:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shudra&diff=621635879&oldid=621633395

I hope the responsible administrators here will take speedy action, and restore my balanced edit. Thanks. -Spark121212 (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Administrators do not get involved in content disputes - your edit issues seem to be a basic follow of WP:CONSENSUS. You're required to discuss potential changes on the article talkpage, otherwise follow dispute resolution processes the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

We do get involved in matters of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, though, as you have been repeatedly told, Spark121212. It's funny how you seem incapable of discussing this, even here on ANI, without assuming conspiracies and disreputable motives ("reverted by this editor and his friends, who collectively act as a vested interest", "a bunch of editors promoting "racism" and "discrimination" on wikipedia"), no matter how many times it's explained to you that it's inappropriate. You're new, and I don't want to block you, but really, what's so hard? Please re-read my comments on your talkpage. And please re-read Sitush's explanations, too. Bishonen | talk 14:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen:When did I attack anyone? My edits were reverted without any explanation, which is what made me question the motives of the editor. When you told me that I discuss the matter in good faith, I withdrew my statement, and discussed it extensively on Talk:Shudra. I have provided research evidence for all my claims, Sitush has provided none, and still his edit stays, and there is no response to my last comment on the Talk page. What am I supposed to make of this maintenance of the status quo? If you were really fair you would see that Sitush has lost the argument, he has no evidence for his claims, and would revert to my edit, or at least discuss the specific problems you may have with my edit. Instead you are trying to condescend by calling me "new", and saying "I don't want to block you", as if there is a reason for you block me, and asking me to re-read arguments which I have convincingly refuted. Again, what would I again by assuming bad faith and assuming disreputable motives? You are NOT addressing the real issue which is the Shudra article. If you say there is a consensus on the article as it currently exists you have to show me research evidence on which this consensus is based, otherwise all this talk of "consensus" is just hot air. From your comment it is clear that 1.You don't want to engage with the discussion on Shudra Talk page 2.You cannot see that Sitush has provided no research evidence, and therefore his claims are empty 3. You want to maintain status quo and let the article stay as it is. 4. You want to make an issue of my assuming bad faith which is a NON ISSUE, I am assuming bad faith because of points 1,2 and 3. It is regrettable that an intellectual discussion to reach consensus has been reduced to a power struggle ("Look we are the senior editors here, you are new, we can block you".

Now that I have taken the discussion to its logical conclusion on Shudra Talk page, I would like to know from you or @Sitush:, once and for all, whether you will revert to my evidence-backed edit or not -- and if not, why not? I hope you/Sitush will provide an honest answer and not filibuster again by throwing in links to wiki consensus pages. -Spark121212 (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

When did you attack someone? You attacked someone when you said the things I quoted above. Here, I'll make them green: "reverted by this editor and his friends, who collectively act as a vested interest", "a bunch of editors promoting "racism" and "discrimination" on wikipedia". Those are the things that you said that were attacks on Sitush and other editors, because those things assumed bad faith, and assumed conspiracies and disreputable motives. I'm sorry, I don't know how I can make it any clearer. Did you click on the blue link there? As I have also told you repeatedly, I have only engaged you as an admin, I'm not prepared to discuss content issues with regard to articles on subjects I'm not familiar with, and I will not revert to your version. Which version to use is a matter for the editors of the article, of which I am not one. See what I said about that on your talkpage. I feel like a gramophone record. Can anybody help explain? I'm done here, I won't post in this thread again to repeat myself further.

As for "Look we are the senior editors here, you are new, we can block you": no, you've got it backwards. It's because you're new that I haven't blocked you already. New users deserve, and get, extra consideration and extra chances to adjust to the site policies. Bishonen | talk 18:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC).

Spark121212, this report is not going to end well for you. There are a host of policies that have been pointed out both here and at the article talk page which you seem either not to understand or not to accept. If you read nothing else, please read WP:BOOMERANG. We do tolerate the misunderstandings of newcomers but not indefinitely. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I will leave you guys with a quote from good old Cicero: "Those who in a free state deliberately put themselves in a position to be feared are the maddest of the mad. For let the laws be never so much overborne by someone individual's power, let the spirit of freedom be never so intimidated, still sooner or later [the subjects] assert themselves […] Furthermore, those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate. […] And we recently discovered, if it was not known before, that no amount of power can withstand the hatred of the many." Cicero, De Officiis -Spark (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:FREESPEECH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat at Ismail Salami

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.

---

See [98] with the edit summary "character defamation. the editor could be sued for this." (for citing comments by the ADL). Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear the quote was used in context, and the example used to justify it is a blog post, not a published work, so I did some editing. But putting it in did not amount to character defamation, and in any case saying an editor could be subject to a legal threat is absolutely unacceptable. Is this an isolated posting from that editor? DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

DGG, That's a new editor. But what he reverted was "Several of his articles there have been cited as examples of Press TV antisemitism by the Anti-Defamation League. sourced to [99] so how does "blog post" come into it? I plan to restore it but if you say there's a problem... And what quote? Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It was merely the subject's blog post, not a formally published article. using it amounts to cherry-picking. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm still confused. I'd call 'Views' more of a column, eg the latest one is from Kevin Barett headlined "ISIL head-choppers serving Zionists". It's a statement by the ADL and I'm reinstating it. Especially since the editor's last edit has the edit summary "Wikipedia is a tool of the Zionists.". That's enough for me to block even if anyone really thinks ""character defamation. the editor could be sued for this." is not a legal threat. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2014 (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:Frimoussou's talk page actions

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.

---

Frimoussou (talk · contribs) has suddenly re-engaged in the disruptive behaviour for which they were previously blocked – modifying comments left by other users without explanation, blanking various sections of talk pages and talk page archives, and repeatedly making personal attacks to further what appears to be some kind of harassment campaign. The warning that I left on their talk page was ignored and removed. Since I was the initiator of the last WP:ANI discussion regarding this user's conduct (in 2012), I am wary of taking administrative action myself; however, I feel that a block is merited. This user has a substantial, if sporadic, history of uncollegial and disruptive talk-page editing. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 02:21, 23 August 2014 (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.

Hangeron9999

Editor with only three edits in all, initiates an AfD.[100] Also a SPA. Suspicious behaviour. Experienced oversight solicited. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless you think this is a sock of someone, and you have evidence, there is nothing suspicious whatsoever about someone creating an acct solely to AfD an article; IPs cannot do it because you have to create a new page. Let the AfD run its course -- that's how you determine if your article is appropriate. Not by running to ANI at the first perceived slight. By posting here, you will inevitably draw much more attention to the AfD than you probably intended, so suggest someone box up this thread with a nice neat {{archive top/bottom}}. Rgrds. --64.85.217.167 (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The AFD may be justified, if the effort is to attain artificial notability via Wikipedia. The suspicion about the SPA, though, is why would someone be so desperate to get some minor thing deleted, that they would create an account just to push for that deletion? It sounds like a potential conflict-of-interest on both sides. P.S. Thanks for tipping us off as to your location. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP's location (and presumably the editor Hangeron as well), by an amazing coincidence, is from rural Missouri. This could well be a POV-push in connection with the Michael Brown situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

'Twas not I that created the AfD -- not my modus operandi to create a one-off acct; I'd simply tag it and then ask for a hand at HD (done it before). However, I do know that you are anti-IP, and basically anti-anyone-who-doesn't-100%-agree-with-you, so: Nice talkin' at ya, B. You can get in the last word if you like, and then respond to yourself a few times, and then generally be a pest, starting....NOW. Rgrds. --64.85.217.167 (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not anti-IP. I am anti-suspicious behavior. And it's written all over you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

OK everybody, he got in the last word... Now let's see how many times he responds to himself... --64.85.217.167 (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Preposterous the suggestion that both sides have a COI, what COI do I have? Secondly there is a strong suggestion that the IP itself is a seasoned editor Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't know what COI you have. As to the IP, yes, it's obviously a veteran troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dearest B, I've been here since 2005. To see how this troll rolls, hop on over to the current edition of AN and search for 64.85. That is how this troll rolls, B. Much more productive than, oh IDK, you? How're those i-bans working for ya? Kindest of all Rgrds. --64.85.217.167 (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The I-bans are working fine. I-bans are good. What do you think about establishing an I-ban between you and me? That is, between any IP from the 64.85 range as well as any and all of your registered accounts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You're funny. Rgrds. --64.85.215.200 (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I-ban?

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.

---

Following up on the previous section, I would like to request an interaction ban between myself and every IP under the prefix 64.85. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you think an i-ban on a dynamic IP range will accomplish? Are you suggesting everyone in this range is the same person or that the same person only uses this range? Chillum 16:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it was the IP's suggestion. Maybe you should ask him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I was responding to your request. The one you put at the beginning of this section. I have already responded to the IP. Chillum 16:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP put the idea in my head, and it seems like a good one. If you're not willing to do it, that's OK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked that you explain your request. It does not really matter who put the idea in your head, you are the one making the request. Chillum 16:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yes, the entire range. Any obvious non-troll from that range could be exempted. Case by case. But I can't of any reason why I would ever need to interact with someone from that range. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I would support this proposal, but suggest extending it to all IP's. That way, we wouldn't have to put up with Bug's recurrent accusations of bad faith from every other IP he encounters. If some of them are trolls, his responses are only feeding them anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I call it "exposing" them. However, I find your proposal excessive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Putting aside that the person making the request does not seem to want to justify it, this request is not practical. I don't know if this is a serious request or an attempt to make a point but I don't think it is productive. Chillum 16:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's not practical, then forget it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

The proposed ban on anonymous IPs interacting with Bugs is of course impractical - but a ban on Bugs responding isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose a one-way IBAN. The behavior of the trolls is worse than that of Bugs. With a one-way IBAN, the trolls will deliberately (and maliciously (good faith has already been disproved)) provoke Bugs to get him blocked. Bugs should know better, but the trolls do know better. A one-way IBAN will be manipulated. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

How can bad-faith behavior be recognized if someone doesn't point it out? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Alas -- such a proposal fails the laugh test :( Collect (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2014 (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.

Recommend Blocking the IP

Regardless of what to do about the issue about Baseball Bugs hostility to IPs, the two specific IP addresses that appear to be one user are being disruptive trolls. They deserve hostility, not because they are unregistered editors, but because they are disruptive trolls (and are taking advantage of the dynamic IP to be disruptive). Recommend that at least the second one be blocked for a week (because a longer block would cause collateral damage). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That’s 64.85.215.200 and maybe 64.85.217.167. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a method for checking the retributions contributions of an IP range, but I don't recall what it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Here, you can see quite a few IPs contributing from this range (64.85.208.0/20), and also see that they're mostly helpful edits, at least on a quick spot check. So I don't think anybody'd want to block the range. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC).

Topic ban Baseball Bugs from AN/I (again)

Trolling request in line with the IP's previous provocations in this thread. Bishonen | talk 23:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bugs shows up out of the blue 16 minutes after my first post and, without evidence or diffs, accuses my own dynamic self of sockpuppetry. I believe that is considered a PA. Bugs has then derailed the above ANI thread completely. This is entirely BB's m.o. I propose Bugs be topic banned for 6 months from all admin notice boards, broadly construed. Again. Rgrds. --64.85.215.200 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC) It is not unreasonable to see a webbed footed aquatic bird quacking and call it a duck. Your proposal is absurd and seems to me to be an attempt at trolling. Chillum 15:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Are you saying it's duck season? Au contraire, it's wabbit season. You see, the thing is, I didn't start the AfD, I'm not Hangeron9999, and I've never seen the article before AN/I. I read AN/I most days, and stated to the OP that his thread was basically frivolous ("my" article is being AfD'd by someone I don't know) and should be closed. The responsibility for the deletion request was then taken over by an established editor at AfD. But then here comes BB sniffing around the tree to see what kind of crap he can dig up. Whenever an IP posts at ANI Bugs immediately begins to try to discredit their statements through no means other than SOCK/DUCK/IPSSUCK or whatnot. This behavior must change if Bugs wishes to continue posting at such notice boards. Also, he needs to retract the PA where he accused me, with no evidence, of being Hangeron9999. Rgrds. --64.85.215.200 (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Your own statement, "search for 64.85. That is how this troll rolls" is a loud quack. That is why I say it is duck season. I don't know anything about the AfD. Both you and BB have generated more heat than light in this discussion and should probably take your beef to one of your talk pages. Chillum 16:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Did you actually search AN? (Inserting AN permalink for archival purposes [101]. --64.85.215.200 (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)) I guess I should have followed that statement with "</sarcasm>" because there was no trolling. Regarding your second question, it is impractical to take it to an ever changing dynamic talk page, and impossible to take it to the perpetually semi-protected talk page of the problem user. You should also retract your sock accusation, although I believe you were acting in good faith when you made it. Rgrds. --64.85.215.200 (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Sarcasm will cause misunderstandings, if I misunderstood then apologies. The fact that sarcasm requires tone of voice and is not even present in all cultures makes it problematic in an international text based environment. Chillum 16:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC) The only real beef is the IP's sudden appearance to defend a nomination for deletion which, given the IP's location, looks like a conflict of interest or POV-pushing. However, there is a meager possibility that the Missouri IP troll is only trying to make it look like a bad faith nomination. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC) ^^^This is what people are talking about with you, B. Always digging deeper. You need to take a 12-step program to leave IPs alone. You can call it "IP-anonymous". See what I did there? Rgrds. --64.85.215.200 (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC) I see an editor who is overreacting to real offenses who has a history of overreacting to real offenses (e.g., the illegal leaking of secrets) and an editor who is deliberately trying to provoke an overreaction. The troll needs blocking. Discussion of BB can wait, although I oppose it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:11raccoon1 Personal attacks

11raccoon1 (talk · contribs) has attacked Plarem (talk · contribs) (me) and United Union (talk · contribs) on multiple occasions, with me issuing relevant warnings on the user's talk page. The relevant diffs are:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALGBT_rights_in_Croatia&diff=622339704&oldid=622323032
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:United_Union&curid=43613572&diff=622357234&oldid=622355991
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUnited_Union&diff=622354476&oldid=622177573

I would like to ask for someone to review User:11raccoon1's conduct. Thank you. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 16:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see insults that are worth blocking over, though 11raccoon1 (talk · contribs) should really tone down the rhetoric some. As for the content matter underlying all this--wait, it's a content matter, which means it's not for this board. Now, I find the back-and-forths to be somewhat amusing, each side attacking the other and making all kinds of claims about bad writing and original research--and that lead actually has both. But you should solve that, somewhere else. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Would this be worth blocking over? It is hate speech and discrimination based on nationality and religion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALGBT_rights_in_Croatia&diff=622390463&oldid=622381672 – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 21:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not worth blocking over, and it is neither hate speech nor discrimination. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This thread has been superseded by a request on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard where there is a wealth of evidence about problematic behaviour by the editors involved in the dispute. --Fæ (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sceptic1954#Vandalism

This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMalaysia_Airlines_Flight_17&diff=622361893&oldid=622357335 is a clear case of vandalism. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Or possibly a case of mistakenly editing a past version of the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you may have jumped the gun with bringing the issue here. Sceptic1954 has not made an edit since you left a message on his talk page. I would give him the chance to respond before assuming it was vandalism. It could have been a mistake, as Andy pointed out. Mike V • Talk 18:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Could especially have been a mistake because it looks like there is a perfect match with an old revision in regards to what information has been removed (this one, to be exact. Here is a comparison between old revision and Sceptic1954's edit, with the edits in between not shown), so if they accidentally edited that version, instead of the one most current at the time, the diff the OP linked to would be a logical result. If it had been blanking-style vandalism, there likely would not have been a perfect match of "old edit + added text = result of diff shown by OP", but instead would have been more garbled in what was removed. That, or they purposefully edited an old version to cause trouble, but that certainly is one of the rarest forms of vandalism around. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

12hrs later (18 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown), 5,965 bytes removed and the thread of the topic destroyed. Yeah, right, easy mistake to make. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Certainly can be. If they had opened the talkpage in editing mode earlier, but for whatever reason not saved it, (nor necessarily even finished typing whatever they intended to type), came back to it later and continued editing it, yes, it would be a relatively easy mistake to make, even if clumsy. (And while yes, they should have gotten an edit conflict notice if such was the case, it wouldn't be the first time that one glitched out). Similarly, if they had that page open for a fair few hours (such as as one of multiple tabs), came back to it and pressed "edit" without first refreshing to see if new edits had been made since. They might even have closed the browser in the mean time, reopened it a while later (provided they have their settings to their browser's version of "remember open tabs"), figuring it'd be reloaded while it's still the old version. (Firefox does that to me with some regularity, loading pages as they looked when I closed the browser, not as they look now). And that's just a few examples of how it may have happened with nothing more than some clumsiness or forgetfulness at worst. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

One case of vandalism intentional or otherwise seems to be a heck of a jump over to here. A rough count on the information they edited would put there edit being done agaainst this version of the apge {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17&oldid=622308491] the version before there last edit before the removal of data. Looka a bit like a poor edit to me but doesnt appear to be vandalism. Amortias (T)(C) 20:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea what's going on. I made, or thought I made, a simple remark in the talk section on the BBC quote, anything else is a mistake, sorry. I've made well over a thousand edits and never had this problem before. Sceptic1954 (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)I can't figure out what happened, possibly I logged in via an emai notifying me of the previous remark in that section and edited. It wouldn't be a case of browser open for many hours. I never saw an edit conflict message. Sceptic1954 (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think AddWittyNameHere was quite right: this, is what seems to have happened (17 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown). This mistake could have been avoided by checking the Revision history: (-5,965)‎ should have set alarm bells ringing. It certainly did with me. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Gosh this anonymous user really seems to have it in for me. I thank the other administrators who have assumed good faith. To confirm what I think happened. I had an email, didn't go to the laest revision of the page but just to the change in question and replied directly. Can someone confirm that this would be the result. I would try to avoid such a mistake in the future (but have a tendency to absent-mindedness.) Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If you logged in selecting view this change instead of view current revision it would take you to that revision, if you then edited that page with your comment then it would have had the effecting of saving the previous page history with your comment attached and overwriting the edits inbetween. Appears to be a bit of an accidental screw up from what I can see of it. There should have been a warning message at the top of the page when you opened it advising it was an old revision of the page you were viewing. Accidents happen, no-one died, lets move on. (If its any consolation one of my first edits was accidently blanking what I thought was an attack page that just happened to be a vandalism edit) Amortias (T)(C) 13:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious editor

User:Simonmana has been reverting my changes [102], reinstating info that is clearly against WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:NONENGEL, ignoring my edit summaries where I explain this. Eik Corell (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not against WP:GAMEGUIDE or WP:NONENGEL other Articles have this kind of information

WP:VGSCOPE sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry

WP:NONENGEL Outside of citations,external links to English-language content are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English. Simonmana (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Simonmana, Eik Corell is right. Your edits are violating WP:GAMEGUIDE (there is no need for Wikipedia to detail the scoring details) nor is there any need to provide the non-English language websites you've been adding when an English language one exists and the official one in the original language exists. Stop edit warring, both of you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Does not state that a scoring is uninmportant considering its a vital part of the games mechanics.And those are official sites of S4 league regardless of language. Simonmana (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Giving details on how many points you get by doing something in a game is a violation of WP:GAMEGUIDE and it doesn't matter how many official sites there are in other languages, this is the English Wikipedia and if there's anything beyond the original language and English then it doesn't matter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Might as well delete the page if its going to be an unfinished censored mess then. Simonmana (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the official sites. Since in most cases only the English and the one from the country or origin is included. I also don't see trying to equate removing gameguide material with censorship as helping your case since that term has a specific meaning that does not apper to apply here.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Simonmana talk has repeatedly placed and restored a speedy deletion tag on S4 League apparently as a tantrum against the current AfD on that article. The article clearly exceeds the standard for A7 deletion and I have declined speedy twice, but he has again restored it and I cannot revert again without violating 3RR. An administrator look would be appreciated. Safiel (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for requesting this whole thing is dragging along too slow.Simonmana (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed the A7 It's been removed multiple times and I think it's best to let the AFD run through.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree we can just let the AfD run its course.--Nowa (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Simonmana is presently disrupting Wikipedia because he lacks the maturity to contribute constructively. I requested multiple times that he properly indent in the AFD and even fixed the indents only to be met with this. I believe that he is not here to contribute constructively anymore and should be blocked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

As you can see i am fully capable of Indenting if i wanted to add them i would have.Your edit was unwanted so i removed it simple.I am here to contribute the problem is you are in my way. Simonmana (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

So now you're just violating WP:POINT amongst other rules. You were told your edits were wrong in various places yet you persisted in making them. Calm down and let people look at the article rather than feel like you're being attacked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I let people look at it some even vandalised it.I do not feel like iam being attack.but the article is being scrutinized by you and others.Guidlines are Guidelines they can be ignored. Simonmana (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

They can only be ignored if there's a good reason for it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well the guideline states in the first place that it is circumstansial.I dont like using other games as a point(nor do wiki guidelines aperently ), but it really is the only way.Alot of other games have huge lists for expample the character list for Mass Effect,but it states that such list are unneeded yet a popular often visited (i would presume) wikipage has a guideline diviation or violation (depending on how you see how absulute a certain guideline is).Another example is the wikipage for WoW.It has its own soundtrack page and asubscription page (the later of which i am positive is against the rules).Another is Ever quest its goes too deep into the games classes something the wiki guidelines dont by your definition permit.And ofcourse that isnt a reason for us to do the same thing ,but then again your argument for removing is that it isnt interesting to you( ie notable) well if you played the game you would know that everything in the wikipage is true.We arent here to provide false information about the game.Welp that should be enough if it isnt go play it.Simonmana (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The characters of Mass Effect are a major part of the game. The scoring system on a free to play MMO which has no critical coverage anywhere are not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

How major something is is subjective.None of the charachters in Mass effect are major for me since i havent played the series yet it isdor someone who hasSimonmana (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Enough of this bullshit. Simonmana is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He should be blocked immediately.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please dont use vulgar language.I am not here to fight with you or do i seek conflict of any kind.I am here to build an encyclopedia and i have done it multiple times only to be met with your persistant actions of removal.Please dont take it as a personal attack against you.Simonmana (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you've done nothing but engage in petty vandalism and edit war. I think Ryulong is right. This is getting tedious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You would be right except that edit was not intentional hence why it wasnt repeated.But you failed to see that.And if you looked at me as you claim you would know i had and still have no reason to vandalise something like papa YGs entertainment company wikipage.In short claim is invalid.Simonmana (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• I took a look at User:Simonmana's contributions, and have blocked them for edit warring on S4 League. Bishonen | talk 13:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC).

Fine then 79.100.56.75 (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANEW

Hey, trigger-happy admins, there's a couple of threads that need your attention. It seems Bbb23 is in the bathroom, and there is no replacement. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm on it, I hear the call, it's time to do my duty. (Runs to the bathroom to hold Bbb23's hand).--v/r - TP 23:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there no privacy around here? There's something about going to the bathroom and blocking that evokes all sorts of unsavory images.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It's just that it's so unencyclopaedic an admin having to, you know, use the bathroom. Don't admins have a bot or a software for that? SlightSmile 01:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Crats get catheters. Admins get nothing. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Should these articles still be under the community place Syrian Civil War sanctions

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.

---

At[103] community sanction were placed on "All articles related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed". On January 7th this year User:Greyshark09 added the sanctions template to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant [104] and at that point the article looked like this]. My question is whether this and the related article Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi should be considered covered by these sanctions (I added the sanctions notice myself to that article earlier this month.

I'm not convinced now that "broadly construed" can be construed this far. The current situation is that the actions and existence of the Islamic State now are really far removed from the Syrian Civil War (ditto its "Caliph") and that the sanctions should not be seen as applying here.

I also don't think that they are needed or a benefit, at least to the article on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant where I am most involved. With a lot of new editors a number of problems that probably would be rectified quickly if people weren't under a 1RR restriction are never fixed. We have always had articles that are about events that are very 'live' in real time but have existed ok without 1RR, so I'm not convinced there is a purely local need for 1RR if the sanctions are seen as not applying.

What friction there is has been more or less between two editors, one of whom is mainly involved in making gnomish edits, eg to footnotes and to English. The article has attracted a lot of new editors (and has few experienced editors, which is a problem), and not all of them can write good English and this required a number of minor edits to correct this. Complaints calling these 1RR violations led me to raise Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Question on gnomish editing, eg case changes, and what counts as a revert and further complaints calling these violations were raised at User talk:Bbb23#1RR in 24 hours restriction and P123ct1. You can see there that I'm very concerned about the ongoing dispute between User:Worldedixor and User:P123ct1, and I don't expect all of that to be resolved by a decision on whether these articles should be covered by the sanctions. That is to an extent a side issue but that issue and my observations over the past few weeks are what has led me to suddenly wonder (I seem to come up with new ideas in the shower) whether the sanctions notice should still be seen as applying here. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw the notice you placed on my Talk page with your question about "whether the article the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant should be considered covered by the Syrian Civil War WP:1RR sanctions".

I would certainly say yes, it must be covered by the WP:1RR sanctions, and I will explain why.

First, I disagree with your argument that "The current situation is that the actions and existence of the Islamic State now are really far removed from the Syrian Civil War (ditto its "Caliph") and that the sanctions should not be seen as applying here".

Second, please be advised that the Islamic State has more than 50,000 fighters in Syria and is actively recruiting more. [105]

Hope this factual clarification helps. Worldedixor (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• It would certainly be a lot less work for me if this article were not subject to community sanctions, but as far as I can tell, there is quite a bit in the article about the Syrian civil war, the roots of the organization, and sentences like "ISIS (now IS) aims to establish a Salafist-orientated Islamist state in Iraq, Syria and other parts of the Levant." I realize that the principal activity is happening in Iraq and seemingly unrelated to the Syrian civil war, but as little as I know about the subject matter, I know there are a lot of interrelationships when it comes to these factions, so I don't think that the current locus should be dispositive. Doug's point about how active the article is and that other active articles exist without 1RR is a bit off. There are a lot of very active articles obviously related to the Syrian civil war, and they benefit from the 1RR restriction. This isn't just any old current event. This is a very controversial current event, so the analogy is somewhat flawed. I also think it would be better to focus on problematic editors rather than on the article per se. I'll leave that analysis to Doug if he wants to make a case for it. Finally, don't think of my comments as a "support" or "oppose"; they're just my musings. I can see the consensus (if there is one) going either way, and I have no problem with that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Those following ISIS can tell you that the majority of ISIS fighters are in Syria and that there is a lot more happening in Syria than in Iraq, especially with them actively recruiting. The focus "lately" has been on Iraq due to the magnitude of the disaster that the destruction of the Mosul Dam can cause, the U.S. strikes, and the "new" atrocities committed by IS in Iraq. However, the US may soon be striking IS in Syria [106] and that will bring a lot of attention to IS in Syria. The WP:1RR has been very helpful to this article but required a bit of restraint from us which is also healthy. One of the many benefits was encouraging responsible and well sourced edits and discouraging reverts a great deal and that is extremely healthy. However, based on what Bbb23 has written, I will help by changing position to neutral for now until more valid arguments in favor of either status quo or change are presented. Worldedixor (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Bbb23 is probably right about me being off-topic about other active articles working without 1RR. I was hoping for more input from the community but so far no luck. And ironically I've also realised that one article that really has had problems that might benefit is James Foley (photojournalist). If the ISIS article does belong, then this one certainly does also I think. And yes, concentrating on problematic editors often helps solve issues. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Bbb23 is probably right about this and that this page ought to remain subject to the sanction. Much of the new caliphate is in Syria after all. I also think that the useful discussion we had on Bbb23's Talk page the other day about reverts and 1RR has helped to clear up quite a few uncertainties about the sanction, and that can only benefit editing on the page under this restriction and the monitoring of it. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Today's news about the events in the area has led me to decide I was definitely wrong. I'll be added the sanctions notice to the Foley article as well, as I said above. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2014 (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.

Highly probable conflict of interest and possible sockpuppetry on AdvisorShares and Fund.com pages

I came to find out about this issue originally by looking at the history of Philippe Cousteau, Jr.'s wikipedia entry. I was referred by someone on the Wikipedia finance talk page to bring my issue here. It seems that User:UserNameUnderConstruction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)(and other names like User:ETFinvestor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)that may be sockpuppets) has only been editing pages related to Advisorshares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (including Fund.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Philippe Cousteau, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). All of the edits the user makes are to get rid of factual information that may reflect negatively on the company and replace it with marketing language. Other users have suspects that this and confronted the user, but the user never denies working for the company and instead tries to go after those accusing him/her and get them banned from wikipedia and asking admins to protect the pages so they can´t be edited to change the marketing language. I don't know how to track ip address on Wikipedia, so I can't tell if UserNameUnderConstruction or the users challenging him or her are sockpuppets. But it is obvious that this person has some connection to the company. The information in the links they deleted was factual and from established sources. The motivation to delete them is most surely to hide details of the company's past. My understanding of Wikipedia's rules is that company paid editors must disclose that they are editors and if they edit should give the other side of an issue and not just try to erase history. Icelandicgolfer (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

A cursory search shows that this account is brand new and is possibly operated by Etfcanadian who has operated several sockpuppets to disrupt the Advisorshares and Philippe Cousteau, Jr. pages, and in particular harass UserNameUnderConstruction. SPI opened, again, but someone should close his retaliatory SPI too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Croatian editor needs directions to hr.wikipedia

Nenad_Erić_"Thomas" (talk · contribs) has added a lot of (unsourced) content to Dionysus and Histories (Herodotus) in Croatian. I've left him a link to hr.wikipedia, but since it was in English (sorry, don't know Croatian), he didn't seem to get the message. If anyone knows Croatian (or feels more confident leaving a machine-translated message than I do), it'd be nice to explain to him that there's already a a Croatian-language Wikipedia where his edits might be more valued, but otherwise... Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

{{contrib-hr1}} does that job. We've got a whole series of bilingual templates to notify such editors. They've turned out to be quite effective so I've put such a message on Eric Thomas's talk page. Let's see how that develops. De728631 (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll do my best to remember that next time, thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

He's continued to add material to other articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, that's actually Serbian. I've warned him in Croatian, using largely simple and common words, which they will understand, so hopefully now they will get the point, if not, let me know. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User Complaint: DiasMi012

This user DiasMi012 is trying to start an edit war on the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet and is not respecting other people's work/edits at all. [107]

Here's a story about my complaint against this user: When I put move the C40HF (5000-5222) to retired list, I put the list of Divisions that the C40HFS were assigned before and I listed 3, 5, 7, & 18 and this user had the courage to delete 3 from the list and I told him that there was NO reason for him to delete "3" from the Division list as the C40HF's have been to D3 before and yet this user reverts my edit(s) [108] and I had to tell him talk page to stop missing with the page, he did respond but he ignores what I said and continues to do this. Some other users revert his edits but yet he reverts them back again. He's not respecting other users work/edits at all. I had to revert his edit once again. I'm getting frustraded with this user and I think action needs to be taken against this user. This user for a long time has been problematic towards other editors and now towards me. I think the adminstration needs to monitor User: DiasMi012 because he basically trying to start a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.58.202 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 23 August 2014

Los Angeles Metro bus fleet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I will notify DiasMi012 (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• @DiasMi012: Comments like the one seen here must not be made on any Wikipedia page. If you believe an IP editor has made a mistake, leave them a polite explanation or a standard template (such as at WP:WARN2). Better still, make an explanation on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have another complaint against this user, he attacked me once again and he did it on the user page here[109]. This User: DiasMi012 is being disrepectful towards me again.

75.82.58.202

Garden variety NPA's might lead to warnings, but referring to someone as "inferior" earned a 24 hr break from the project the panda ₯’ 21:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit war on Winston S. Churchill (redirect page)

This (with the "middle name S") is Winston Churchill's pen name - hence, and quite logically, it has always redirected to Winston Churchill as writer - the primary topic on Sir Winston's writing career. This is now in dispute - another editor wishing it to redirect to Winston Churchill (an article primarily about Sir Winston's political career, and hence of little relevance) instead. The discussion has long since ceased to be very constructive on either side, we do need a definitive ruling on this one. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

(edited slightly) The history of that redirect ((T·E·H·L·R) Winston S. Churchill) is a little bit less clear than Soundofmusicals describes. It was created in 2003 and at different times before 2012 it has pointed to the "famous" Churchill or to some disambiguation pages, or been a dab page itself. Soundofmusicals changed it in 2012 to the page about famous Churchill's writing career, and it stayed there til August 19 2014, when Barney the barney barney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted it back to "famous" Churchill, with Barney and Soundofmusicals both reverting 3 times that day. Then Barney moved it back on 22 August and Soundofmusicals posted here.

More at issue IMHO than the localized 2-person edit war was Barney's quite obnoxious interaction and personal attacks in edit summaries[110] and at Talk:Winston S. Churchill and also at User talk:Barney the barney barney#Winston_S._Churchill. Soundofmusicals could have gone to the redirect talk page a little sooner but was basically civil about the issue.

Soundofmusicals, the usual way to deal with a content dispute is to ask for help at WP:3O (since it's a 2-person dispute) or WP:DRN or open a content RFC. I don't have a view one way or the other about the redirect target, so I'm mostly left asking Barney the barney barney to tone down the incivility and sarcasm such as this (regarding an unrelated query about a personal attack in an edit summary), before admin intervention is required. There was no reason for that and it really does get on people's nerves. If someone else has clearer thoughts about the redirect itself, they might post to the redirect talk page (we're now past the bold/revert phase of WP:BRD so it's probably best to temporarily refrain from further direct edits).

Note: Soundofmusicals mentioned on Barney's talk page that they had "formally asked for arbitration" but I think that means they posted here at ANI. WP:Requests for arbitration is entirely different and not the right thing for this. I'll notify Barney of this thread. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have put in a request at WP:3O - hope this is in the right form. To be fair I think I might have been the one who got sarcastic first. My only issue with Barney_the_barney_barney is the article to which this redirect should point to, not our mutual irrelevant banter. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You are right, this edit summary of yours was not nice, though neither was the "wtf" that it responded to. I had mostly looked at the talk page first. It's best to stay polite and factual in situations like that. Your 3O request looks ok to me, though you might want to neutrally describe the historical Churchill situation (about the US novelist, the pen name, etc) in a little more detail on the redirect talk page so people can understand the issue better. I think I understand it, but I still don't have any advice about the redirect. Ultimately IMHO it's an obscure enough issue that it doesn't matter that much one way or the other, and thus getting in conflict over it is even more counterproductive than some other sorts of conflicts. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• See below: for an entirely different situationn Barney has been blocked for 96 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

162.203.158.110

Hi,

Not quite sure this is a blatent legal threat on its own but combined with the part about tracking the editor it does seem to be aimed at creating a chilling effect. [111]. Amortias (T)(C) 23:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Block by Dreadstar in need of review.

Dreadstar has blocked User:NazariyKaminski for one week, claiming that they were "edit warring", after NK reported two other users at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rick_Perry_article and has remained steadfast in his placement of an egregiously long block (1 full week) based on claims that he is allowed to "escalate" blocks based on a months-old previous content dispute.

Dreadstar also claims as a justification that "I'm not seeing any BLP violations; you were edit warring, removing 'abuse of power' [1][2][3] when it is clearly stated in the reliable source provided. Dreadstar ☥ 21:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)"

The source Dreadstar links, however, states: "Perry was indicted on charges of abuse of official capacity"; Dreadstar says that the block was for "removing 'abuse of power'" when the edits actually change the title to reflect the official charge description, "Abuse of Official Capacity." [112] Whether or not Dreadstar intended to do so, his commentary is a misrepresentation of the edits he is using as justification for the block.

Commentary by Cwobeel also indicates that the block is not intended for a valid reason, but is an illegitimate "cool down block" created for an overly long time period that does not serve the purposes of wikipedia or conform to Wikipedia policy.

Per suggestion by Nomoskedasticity as an uninvolved, neutral party and as Dreadstar appears to have an axe to grind with the user per Dreadstar's commentary on the user's talk page, and as Dreadstar has refused to modify the terms of his block despite opposition to his action both on the talk page and on the BLP Noticeboard talk, I am posting here to get more eyes on Dreadstar's actions that seem to violate the blocking policy and the policy on actions by involved administrators.

I'm not convinced that a block is warranted. The editor did not exceed 3RR. If you're not willing to undo it, I think it should be reviewed at ANI. I don't think the editor will edit again in the relevant time period, and I think they should be able to participate on the talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk)

It is common practice that edit warrring/3rr block increase in duration if repeated. I don't have time now to look into the BLP claims. Chillum 16:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

While that may or may not be true, it seems out of line to jump straight to a full week block based on something that happened over six months ago with no pattern. The commentary also leads to the conclusion that rather than being legitimately intended, the block was intended as a "cool down block" and such blocks are forbidden by policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

3rd block for edit-warring certainly is a "pattern". One is supposed to learn before the first block. Additional blocks escalate accordingly on purpose. No comment on this specific situation, yet the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Support block. There's four instances where NazariyKaminski changed the phrase "abuse of power" to read "abuse of official capacity": diff, diff, diff, diff. While the official charges are phrased as "abuse of official capacity" and "coercion of a public servant", source at the Washington Post does use the phrases "indicted for abuse of power", "abusing his official powers", and "allegedly abusing the powers of his office". Other sources such as Fox News and ABC News are also describing the event as abuse of powers. The final two edits add unsourced negative information about a living person ("cursing out the officers that arrested her"). Blocks of escalating duration are usual for edit warring, so a block of 24 hours in January 2014, 72 hours in April 2014, and one week in August 2014 is not exceptional or draconian imo. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem: Dreadstar linked to [113], the Washington Post, which accurately describes the charges as "Abuse of Official Capacity" to justify his claim that removing "Abuse of Power" was incorrect. At very best that's a horribly lazy misrepresentation of the source. "Perry was indicted on charges of abuse of official capacity, a first-degree felony with potential punishments of five to 99 years in prison, and coercion of a public servant, a third-degree felony that carries a punishment of two to 10 years." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 16:31, August 21, 2014 (UTC)‎

The wording "abuse of power" does not in my opinion constitute a violation of the BLP policy, one of the few exceptions to the edit warring policy, as while it is not the terminology used in the official charges, it is an accurate reflection of the content of multiple reliable sources. My opinion stands. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support Being right or being justified with a source are not exemptions to edit warring. Everyone thinks they are right - and so everyone would claim the exemption. You are supposed to stop and discuss the issue - not war over it. Escalating blocks are appropriate.--v/r - TP 16:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse block I think it's unlikely there's a BLP violation rather than trying to shoehorn a preferred (less damning) wording in through BLP. While BLP requires accuracy, this isn't a case of inaccuracy. As an aside, consider that "abuse of official capacity" could reasonably be redirected to "abuse of power". As to the block length, the escalation is entirely reasonable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Good block. Edit-warring is the scourge of collaborative editing and NazariyKaminski has not learned from previous blocks of 1 day and 3 days already this year. Anything less than 7 days now would be out of line with current practice. It's worth noting that the claim of 'BLP' as a get-out for edit-warring is becoming an increasing problem and editors who abuse that should expect the community to take a dim view. As with any edit, if you're right, then others will agree with you; forcing your own view into an article through edit-warring, rather than seeking consensus through reasoned discussion, is the antithesis of how we write articles. --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"Anything less than 7 days now would be out of line with current practice." Request for clarification: where is there any documentation of this supposed "current practice"? Because the policies as written do not support your view.

Wikipedia:Sanctions_against_editors_are_not_punishment

"Some editors, even some administrators on Wikipedia forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Wikipedia politics. They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of community principles in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content. This is regrettable and problematic, not to mention contrary to the reason for blocks, bans, and enforcements as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines and policies linked in the previous sentence. When proposing or supporting an action that could easily be interpreted to be punishment, ask yourself, "Will this action help make the content on Wikipedia better?" If the answer is not an unequivocal "yes" and you still end up supporting the action, you may be an adherent to the punitive model of Wikipedia. This may also mean you enjoy the perceived "power" that you get from enforcing your will through the various features (or bugs) of the Wikipedia community." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 19:13, August 21, 2014 (UTC)‎

Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors are not punishment is a user-created essay, not a policy. The policy page is at WP:Edit warring. The section Wikipedia:Edit warring#Administrator guidance says that 24 hours is the usual block for a first edit war, and escalating blocks are usual thereafter. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable. Edit-warring is bad and escalating blocks can be used to discourage it. If you don't like it, don't edit-war. --John (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse Block - nothing harsh about this at all, especially considering prior blocks for the same thing. Escalating blocks for repeated violations is part of the blocking policy. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone review the reporting IP's edits, they have been edit warring on Vani Hari, continuing to do so after being warned [114], [115]. I've warned the IP again, but they may have violated 3RR after the first warning. I strongly suspect IP is a WP:Sock - (Just to add that I have Vani Hari on my watchlist and noticed the edit-warring from that.) Dreadstar ☥ 19:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree. The IP seems like an obvious sock.- MrX 20:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe a week is justified by policy - certainly it would be much fairer to users to go 1/2/3/4 days rather than 1 day, 3 days, a week which resembles illegal "cool down" blocking - but since there is consensus, there is consensus. I do however object to the uncivil way Dreadstar has now attempted to retaliate against me for listing this, especially as I am working very hard to discuss edits on the talk page, have requested helpers to assist me in finding compromises, and am in no way engaged in an "edit war." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, your belief turns out to be wrong. Policy documents what happens on wiki, not reflects your personal ideas of "fairness". The fact is that when placing a block, the admin has a drop-down box to pick the block length from. The default setting in the mediawiki software offers "1 day", "3 days", "1 week", "2 weeks" ... "1 year" (doubling or tripling each step). That scheme enjoys consensus (or it would have been changed by now), so that's the reason why the three blocks that NazariyKaminski has garnered this year were 1 day, 3 days, 7 days. Of course it's justified by policy, because that's normal practice and here "normal practice" = "policy". --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked as a LTA due to CU and Behavioral evidence --Guerillero | My Talk 02:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Duration OK. Glrx (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sandra Morgen anon Edit warring

editor at ip 50.186.0.13 continues to revert changes to an article with no reason whatsoever. I've asked for explanation, but they never respond - only revert. Diffs here. They use multiple different IPs Thebrycepeake (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for a week. If the problem resumes when the protection wears off, please list it at WP:RFPP for another round of protection. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Response was given when requested on the talk page of the article prior to Thebrycepeake reverting the edits again. User created this article in order to obtain an academic reference. Other than that, the subject of the article is not notable.

Potential wikihounding by NorthBySouthBaranof

I first interacted with the user NorthBySouthBaranof when I began defending reliably sourced content at the article Wisconsin State Fair. Since then the author has removed several reliable sources from the article, rather than coming up with a compromise content solution in the talk page, and have began to exhibit signs of ownership over that portion of the article. Then I edited an article, that I had never edited before Cult of personality; this edit was than removed by NorthBySouthBaranof. This appears to be the early stages of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, and before it becomes serious, I ask that it stop.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

So, in order to resolve the possible issue, you were required to discuss with them on their usertalk page - make sure there were no real issues brewing. Then, if they escalated, you could come here ... and advise them. Why did this become so urgent that you decided to skip a few steps? the panda ₯’ 21:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Baranof has edited Obama-related articles, though, as have you. Many of us have interconnected articles on watchlist, including cult of personality. It isn't a conspiracy if many editors find your edits to be disagreeable. If I recall correctly, you have tried similar things in similar articles. Tarc (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not uncommon or prohibited to look at contributions lists for editors whose edits one perceives as problematic. I perceived an issue with you defending content that I (and another editor) found to be undue weight. Upon examining your contributions to the "Cult of personality" article, I found a similar issue of undue weight - one that had already been extensively discussed on the article talk page, with consensus rejecting essentially the same content you implemented. I reverted and requested that you discuss the issue based on that pre-existing consensus.

If I was wikihounding you, I'd be editing Boeing P-8 Poseidon, Nepalese American and Territorial disputes in the South China Sea. But I'm not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Meritless complaint. It's not improper to check out a user's edits if one is concerned about them — I often do. There's a reason we have the "User contributions" feature. I can't see any "apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor", which is how the policy defines wikihounding; NorthBySouthBaranof's edits and posts on the article talkpages appear to be about the articles and about due weight issues, not anything personal against RightCowLeftCoast.

RightCowLeftCoast, it's pretty offensive to level charges of "ownership" merely because one meets resistance. "When did NorthBySouthBaranof begin to become the owner of the content of this site?"[116] It's not necessarily a sign of ownership to disagree with you, nor a sign of vandalism to revert your edits with an explanatory edit summary. (Why you have repeatedly called such reverts "unexplained", as well as vandalism, at Wisconsin State Fair is a mystery to me.) And in any case, as the panda points out, this noticeboard is for issues that persist after you have tried to resolve them with the user — not for "the early stages" of whatever "before it becomes serious". Admins are only likely to intervene in stuff that is serious. Your dissatisfaction at being opposed on content issues hasn't reached that stage. Bishonen | talk 00:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC).

Shoot me. I do it all the time myself. If I interact with an editor substantially, I tend to check other articles he/she is editing. I find this to be a great way to discover new articles that need work. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Same here. It's not strange to look at someone's contributions, especially if you notice what you believe to be an misunderstanding of policy or a mistake that might be repeated in multiple articles. For a brief period, I thought that Category:American films was supposed to be diffused. It's not. So I got reverted a few times. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

As plenty of others have indicated, even if they did check out your edit history, this isn't necessarily an indication of hounding and it's easily possible they did not. Also I see plenty of discussion including from NbSB on the talk page of the article you claimed NbSB was misbehaving so your complaint there also seems to have little merit. Discussion means they should be willing to what you have to say and give it fair consideration, it doesn't mean they definitely need to come to a compromise if you are wrong nor does it mean they should definitely leave the content while discussion takes place. As Bishonen has hinted, your behaviour in that discussion with seemingly unsupported claims of vandalism & unexplained removals, suggest you probably shouldn't draw attention to it either. Nil Einne (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason Well, it seems RightCowLeftCoast found his enjoyment of editing disrupted. I had my own stalker a few months ago, and I found it quite creepy. I can't blame RightCowLeftCoast if he feels the same way. NBSB (whom I enjoy seeing his name appear on pages I work on) is probably now aware that RightCowLeftCoast does not share my enthusiasm for NBSB's presence. I'm sure he will take that into consideration in the future.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount

Two and a half years ago (February 2012) user:Skäpperöd made some major contributions to Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) [117]. After an intense discussion with User:Volunteer Marek and user:MyMoloboaccount (From Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) #Recent edits down to Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) #Another problem with sources) a compromise was reached, which led to a stable version for 2,5 years. Different viewpoints (the topic is one of the traditional Polish-German conflicts) were presented in a neutral manner, opinions were clearly marked as such and attributed. As a secondary product of that discussion the ref section featured large quotations of the sources. These quotations were provided because Marek asked for them.Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk)#Sources; [118] [119]

In August 2014 Marek returned to the article and deleted more or less every single addition Skäpperöd had made two years ago. He argued, that “block quotes” should be avoided (those quotations he had asked for in Feb. 2012) and deleted not only the quotations but the whole sourced info from the article. He regards a critical view of a monument erected in post-war Poland as WP:Cherrypicking and in general anything not supporting his POV as WP:UNDUE.

I have removed the quotations from the ref section and some minor problematic parts (though WP:TRUTH wouldn't require that). However Marek, who was joined by Moloboaccount [120], continued to delete what he doesn't like [121] [122] [123] and ignored my attempts to find a compromise in a detailed discussion [124]. He was supported by MyMoloboaccount, who blindly reverted to VM's version and declared that the reasons to remove large parts of the article had already been explained [125].

In my opinion his "reasons" to delete large portions of the article are actually just attempts to mask WP:IDONTLIKEIT, the "repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors" and the way he ignores attempts to find a compromise are typical WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.

I had started a request at WP:DRN which was closed without a real response[126], unfortunately my patience in waiting for some neutral input was mistaken as "stasis". HerkusMonte (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately Herkus doesn't want a dispute resoluation as he stated that this is a "waste of time"[127], even when advised to seek mediation by the closing admin, which he didn't pursue.

Herkus accusations found no response on DRN after people he accused responded.It's just an attempt to reignite a case that was already ignored.

Herkus is incorrect in stating that there was a "compromise"-the article was simply left alone.

I don't believe that sources that were used by Herkus and are based on writings by people like Werner Conze or Theodor Schieder both of whom were dedicated Nazis propagating ideas of German supremacy, nationalism and ethnic cleansing and genocide against Poles should be used as sources for articles about Polish-German history. We had issues before where such sources were repeatedly removed and Herkus is aware of them, having participated in defending them before and naming such publications as "highly reputable"[128], which was not accepted by WP:RSN and such sources are not considered reliable. Contrary to what Herkus claims, I have not "blindly" reverted but explained why Nazis shouldn't be used for source for Polish history[129].--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you are unaware of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It is perfectly reasonable to say that citations from such authors should not be allowed to dominate articles. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. Saying that sources by post-war West German academics are unreliable does not seem reasonable. Saying that they have a minority point of view that needs to be balanced by what is the currently accepted mainstream point of view, is reasonable.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ay. First, it's not very nice to condescendingly lecture long established users about WP:NPOV using passive agressive language like "apparantly you are unaware..." Second, this is a content dispute, not "disruptive editing" as in the misleading section title, so why is this at AN/I? Because Herkus didn't like the closure at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (I sympathize)? Hence, while your comments may be irrelevant, this isn't the venue for them. Third, if we are going to talk content, then yes, you are precisely right: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject" The whole problem was that this is NOT what the article was doing. It was presenting minority sources in disproportion to their relevance, like including extensive quotes and text from an author whose (self published?) analysis contradicts established consensus of historians on the subject. That's one example. Another is the overly extensive use of works one of whose listed co-authors is a (perhaps mildly reformed) ex-Nazi. I mean, ok, if we take WP:UNDUE seriously then maybe, just maybe, we include something to represent this "minority point of view". But not for most of article. Apparently you are unaware of Wikipedia:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The point is, that these "extensive quotes", which were not part of the main body but just mentioned within the ref section, were provided because Volunteer Marek asked for them. These quotations have been removed meanwhile but VM still keeps deleting content which was based on these sources. VM is not even trying to rewrite or whatever might be necessary to improve the article, he just deletes large portions of the article (in fact, German research only).What Marek calls "minority views" are actually just scholary views not supporting the traditional Polish POV, while they are not at all a minority in Germany. VM and Molobo are also still refusing to discuss in detail what might be a step to improve the article based on WP:COMPROMISE and WP:CONSENSUS, instead they are pushing through their version. The "repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors" and the "repeated disregard of other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" is certainly disruptive and not just a content dispute. The usage of different policies (UNDUE, CHERRY) is actually just a random listing without any precise rationale (WP:GAMING).

As a reaction to this request Molobo followed one of my latest edits at Template:Did you know nominations/Mendelsohn house, which had already passed the DYK process and added a (not even a , right into NO) falsely claiming that a certain fact was not supported by the sources. Actually everything is well sourced and easily accessible. Adding "unjustified tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable" is also a matter of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.

Regarding the disputed source. I already suggested to bring it to WP:RSN but Molobo carefully omits such a step. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Nazi sources have been debated already before on RSN and the consensus is that they are not reliable sources for information on Polish history, Herkus is well aware of that as he participated in these discussions[130],[131] and his attempts to defend them as source for articles on Polish history were rejected by the community. Herkus's edits on Mendelsohn house included unsourced claims that Poland destroyed Jewish cemetery because it was anti-semitic. Such claim obviously requires a good, reliable source which I requested.I have worked with Herkus DYU nominations before, and unfortunately sometimes they violate NPOV, take for example last nomination and article written by Herkus[132],[133], which presented a nationalist racist activist as opponent of Hitler, while completely absent of information about his involvement in biological warfare and terrorism and racism which I had to add to the article[134].Current nomination unfortunately follows the pattern, with strong claims remaining unsourced and organizations named in the article as having "unbiased research" implying those with opposing views are biased.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

PS:Do note, that the closing admin on DRN suggested to Herkus to take this issue to formal mediation[135], which Herkus refused to do so, claiming such efforts are a "waste of time"[136]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

We are talking about a book by Hartmut Boockmann, Professor at the Universities of Kiel (1975-1982), Göttingen (1982-1992, 1995-1998)) and Berlin (1992-1995), an expert in Eastern European medieval history and especially the history of the Teutonic Knights. To describe Boockmann's publications as "Nazi sources" is simply unbelievable. Consequently, your "examples" above refer to a completely different book (which I never used, btw; I just participated in a RSN discussion).

This is not the place to discuss the Mendelsohn House. Every single detail is based on sources: the destruction of the remains of the Jewish cemetery in 1968 as well as the role of the Borussia Foundation, which received the Lev Kopelev Prize [137] in 2004 because of their attempt to research the local history unbiased and without the traditional taboos of Polish postwar historiography. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete.

Regarding Rudolf Nadolny: I'm not going to answer your unbelievable assumption of bad faith, however your statement shows that your recent contribution wasn't accidental but you purposefully followed my edits in order to add an completely unjustified "citation needed" tag (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS) and a without even trying to resolve whatever you might regard problematic. You are constantly repeating your claim that I used "Nazi sources" in the past and that I was warned about it [138][139] [140], which is a) utter nonsense and b) offensive. I already told you that I regard this a WP:PERSONAL ATTACK.

WP:HOUNDING is described as: "If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. Are you aware of that policy? HerkusMonte (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"Taboos of Polish postwar historiography"? Oh dear, this is obvious heavy POV.

And we are talking about a book co-written by Werner Conze who "envisioned a social policy based on racialist principles in German "Lebensraum"; he demonstrated his concepts on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where he accused Polish peasants and their "petty peasant instincts" of revolting against "German order". In doing so Conze mixed his deprecating views with empirical results and transferred racialist concept of society to agrarian situation in Central and Eastern Europe. He viewed Polish population as "degenerated" and engaged in "vegetative reproduction", and blamed lack of social progress of rural population on Jews"

The book btw is based on sources from Nazi Germany such as Theodor Schieder's publication from 1941 or Rode's from 1944. Now Schieder "During the Nazi era he pursued a racially oriented social history (Volksgeschichte) and warned about the supposed dangers of Germans mixing with other nations.[4] The primary purpose of Schieder's research was to justify alleged German supremacy.He was the author of the "Memorandum of 7 October 1939",[6][7] calling for expulsion of millions of Jews, Poles, Russians and other nationalities from Eastern Europe in order to create "room" for German settlers.[4][8] His suggestions were later incorporated in the German Generalplan Ost".

These authors are well known Nazis who aren't reliable sources of information on Polish history.

As to" You are constantly repeating your claim that I used "Nazi sources" in the past and that I was warned about it [141][142] [143], which is a) utter nonsense and b) offensive"

I will just point as an example that you inserted a reprint of map by Nazi Walter Kuhn and were warned about it are you seriously trying to put in a map based on the work of a Nazi propagandist into the article?

The Nazi Walter Kuhn"

tried to determine "biological strength" of German peasants and pointed out the "weakness" of "intermarrying with Slavs" which could lead to "de-Germanisation".[2] Kuhn viewed himself and his colleagues as "bearers of civilization" and his goal as "to transform the instinctive feeling of superiority and pride towards the surrounding peoples(...)into a true national consciousness".[2] He also published works regarding Poland which were aimed at presenting its western territories as German[6]"There are many publications in Germany Herkus. You tend to support and defend a fringe minority that is either connected to or written by Nazis like Kuhn or Conze. Why not choose from hundreds or thousands of publications that have no Nazi connections? Nobody will oppose insertion of trustworthy, reliable sources not connected to Nazis or nationalism.

add an completely unjustified "citation needed" tag. An unsourced claim stating that Poland destroyed Jewish cemeteries because it was anti-semitic is rather a heavy accusation that requires good reliable sources Herkus. A request for citation for such a claim is neither "endentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior" but a perfectly justified request.

Cheers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not getting more true just because you repeat it on and on. Hartmut Boockmann was the leading expert in Eastern European medieval history. To delete his publications would ignore a significant part of modern scholary research, which seems to be the purpose of all this. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

We are are talking however about publications from Werner Conze and Theodor Schieder, both of whom were Nazis engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide of Polish and Jewish population and whose writings aimed at justifying German conquest of Polish territories, presenting them as "eternally German" and Polish culture as "inferior".There are perfectly acceptable Western German historians that aren't connected to Nazism or genocide for example Heinrich Winkler or Fritz Fischer, why not use them?-MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

We are are not talking about publications of Conze or Schieder, we are talking about your attempt to discredit and delete modern research. And Fritz Fischer? You mean the member of the Freikorps Oberland who joined the Nazi Sturmabteilung in 1933 and the Nazi Party in 1937? The one who praised the Nazi German Christians Movement and lectured about the influence of "Jewish blood" on the British upper class and the economy and politics in the US? Sure, because you like what he wrote later on while you don't like Hartmut Boockmann. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are you guys arguing about POV, sources, and content on ANI? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Because "repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors" and "repeated disregard of other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" are WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Deleting large well-sourced parts of an article without even trying to find a WP:COMPROMISE, ignoring the attempts to discuss, ignoring WP:RSN and WP:HOUNDING other editors DYK nomiminations is certainly not just a content dispute. This kind of coordinated editing of Molobo and VM has been a well-known problem since the WP:EEML case. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly inappropriate post on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

An IP posted a permalink (on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard) to an editor's user page that contains personally identifying information about that editor. This information has been removed from that editor's user page (the editor has blanked their user page). The post by the IP also includes an EL based on that information and discloses information from that EL which is also information not (to my knowledge) disclosed on WP. I am not making this filing to report the IP, thus I am not notifying the IP. I apologize for not including a link to the post, but I think that is per policy. Seems like WP:OUTING and doxing to me so a revdel may be in order. An offer to revdel or delete the editor's user page may be in order. I don't know if this falls under an exception related to COI but I thought best to notify admins and let someone with advanced knowledge of policy decide what if anything might/should be done. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sock attack at List of metro systems

There is currently a sock attack going on at List of metro systems and List of tram and light rail transit systems. Socks revert the flag of China to the flag of Hng Kong. There is a consensus of editors in good standing at the talk page that this is not approppriate. I am not sure ho to proceed. I left a RFPP request, but the socks have been persistent for some time. I am not sure what socks they are, so that I can not file an SPI, and they are careful enough to not overstep 3RR in any article (and they are throwaway accounts anyway). I myself edited both articles, protected them in the past, and thus I am involved (though I have no opinion on the HK flag issue).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppets imply gaming the system (a type of vandalism) or a banned user, both of which are exceptions under 3RR. Also the talk page seems to suggest Instantnood is to blame, as an SPI has been open for a week.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid they need to be blocked, and I certainly do not want to block them given there is no proof they are socks (SPI not completed). One of them continues reverting everything on sight.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

SPI is so heavily backlogged. These guys are here to disrupt and for no other reason. That's textbook WP:NOTHERE.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

There is now a (possibly) completely separate account that has long been on the project supporting the Instantnood socks. This needs to be stopped by someone. Also I need rollback rights again because Twinkle is being slow as molasses.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

John Mutton AFD

In the current AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mutton, User:Barney the barney barney has been making persistent allegations that my nomination was a bad faith attempt to misrepresent the subject's notability. The article, as written, makes no claims that inherently entitle the subject to an automatic keep under WP:NPOL — his political career took place entirely at the city council level in a city which is not large enough to confer automatic notability on its city councillors. He could potentially qualify for an article which was well-sourced enough to pass WP:GNG, a point which I've made right from the start, but as written the article relies on a single source which isn't substantively about Mutton, but rather merely mentions his name in passing as a predecessor of the person the reference is actually about.

Barney's argument has been that the subject was the leader of a political party bloc on the council — however, NPOL does not accord any greater weight to that distinction than it does to "garden-variety" city councillors. Even with that claim in place, a person still has to pass GNG on the basis of coverage which is substantively about them, and is not automatically entitled to keep an article based on a single source which only contains a single mention of his name.

But instead of making any effort to improve the sourcing so that the article could potentially be kept, Barney has consistently attacked me as an individual, asserting that I'm lying about and misrepresenting the subject's notability — even though all I'm doing is looking at the notability claims and sourcing that are in the article as written, and comparing them to what WP:NPOL accepts or does not accept as sufficient notability for a politician. And when I advised him that he was pushing the WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF lines, he doubled down with an assertion that I have a longstanding pattern of "lynching" quality articles, and that he had extended me an assumption of good faith which I had betrayed with continued "lies" (including some personally directed at Barney, but I'm really struggling to identify where I've done anything of the sort.)

Accordingly, I'm asking for this situation to be reviewed, because the back and forth about it is becoming unproductive and distracting from the fundamental issue of whether the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article or not. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked him for the duration of the AFD (96 hours) for disruption and personal attacks the panda ₯’ 21:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This block needs reviewing by an uninvolved admin, quickly. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Is that because I've now extended it and locked his talkpage for further violations of NPA while blocked? the panda ₯’ 00:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it is because I believe your blocking of BBB is excessive, punitive and unwarranted. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I've never issued a punitive block in my life. But hey, if you think personal attacks and disruption are ok, then go ahead the panda ₯’ 00:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Good block appropriate length, eliminates the source of disruption as it runs for the length of the AFD in question, exactly what the situation called for. Once the AFD is done, the locus of the problem goes away. Well thought out and executed. Good call. --Jayron32 05:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Jayron for your review. BBB is blocked for far longer than the duration of the AfD though, and it isn't clear that you are aware of that. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The original block, for the duration of the AFD, was appropriate. The revocation of talk page access was a judgment call, although it probably should have been made by a different admin than the original blocking admin. I don't see why the block was extended, and would ask that an uninvolved admin shorten the block to the original time. The original block was needed. I don't see why an off-by-two incident (disruption of an AFD, followed by quarreling about that block) requires a two-week block. Two-week blocks are usually reserved for repeat offenders. Please consider shortening the block. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Good original block. The personal attacks are tame but I suppose justify removal of talk page access, probably not what I would have done.

I think the removal of talk page access obviates the preventative nature of the block increase, thus I recommend the original duration or allow talk page access(prefer former given behavior). Both together seem excessive.

Rather than another admin do this lets give DangerousPanda time to respond. Chillum 14:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Based on the above discussion, there appeared to be 2 themes: by extending the block AND removing talkpage access, it was less preventative. However, by retaining the original block length (for the AFD disruption) and removing talkpage access (for the continued attacks), it was acceptable prevention for both disruption and NPA. Based on this I have returned the block to its original length while retaining the lock of the talkpage. To be honest, if Roxy had approached me with this argument, rather than simply say "this needs to be reviewed" (reviewed for what purpose?) and instead of "I believe the block was punitive and unwarranted" (which block, and why?), it likely would have been amended earlier the panda ₯’ 14:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your fast and reasonable response. Chillum 14:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the considered responses on this thread. @DangerousPanda I take your point about my approach to this, will try harder. In my defence, I am at my worst at 1:30 AM just before bedtime, and I should have made a clearer and more constructive (less belligerent) comment. I appreciate your response. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Single purpose account dedicated to pushing one particular religious idea

Oh_My_Volcano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account created specifically to push the idea that just about anything in the Hebrew Bible goes back to volcanoes. Leviathan? Volcano. Yahweh? Volcano. He has since taken to the talk page, where he's posting a bunch of sources that fail WP:RS (and some that fail WP:COMMONSENSE), many not even actually supporting any sort of volcanic connection to Yahweh.

We have an WP:SPA who is here to push a particular POV, one that is WP:FRINGE, with awful citations meant to assign undue importance to a single aspect of a subject, who is barely listening to anyone -- all to teach us the truth about Yahweh. This is simply not the place for anyone to be "teaching us the truth" about any deity, regardless of whatever religion or lack thereof they have, especially when their sourcing is downright horrendous. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Block - there's a small element of significance to volcanic imagery in the Hebrew Bible, mainly in Psalms, and some notable historical hypotheses by Freud and amateur 19th Century geographers/geologists, but those sources are can be handled by non WP:SPA non WP:FRINGE editors. This account appears to have made not one single non-volcano theory related edit, of which nothing represents anything but a time sink for other editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Would it be considered outing if I where to point out that his username (unexplained emphasis on username) is (if you know what you're looking at) evidence of WP:NOTHERE? Ian.thomson (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, clearly WP:NOTHERE, also see his talk page edits. Love the fact that he claims changing section headings is censorship. Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 08:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• There is actually some pretty good sourcing available about the volcano thing, though being obsessed with it is surely not good. No opinion of the block since I didn't look at the user's edits. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• The indefinite length of block is uncalled for. A 48 hour block would give the potentially good editor time to reflect on concerns expressed by others. You have to give potential editors adequate space in which to "rehabilitate" themselves. Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

  Indefinite is not necessarily infinite. The "adequate space" in this case is on their talk page while blocked. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Richard Attenborough

Hi, Might be worth getting some sets of eyes on this as per the news of his passing [144]. Amortias (T)(C) 21:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkpage violations at Talk:Historicity of Jesus

No way you want to hear more about problems at Talk:Historicity of Jesus. But, I see no other good alternative.

John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the person I'm having difficulty with.

Background:

1. John Carter has posted some oblique "warning" messages to me at Talk:Historicity of Jesus-- directed at "a certain obvious POV pusher," and "a rather single-minded POV pusher." diff1diff2 Frankly, I find these to be creepy - as if he's trying to intimidate me.
2. John Carter started an ANI a few days ago, accusing me of “tendentious POV pushing at Historicity of Jesus. He provided only one diff – to a comment totally unrelated to me, and provided no explanation of his claim. After I pointed this out, the ANI was closed, as I'd done nothing blockable. (The ANI is long and stupid. Please don't feel like you need to read it all.) diff to ANI
3. On my talk page, I asked John Carter (several times) what POV he thought I was pushing, since he never said. He doesn't seem to want to tell me, though he does go on at length about my personal failings. (You don't really want to read all this either, but I provide it to show that I'm trying to stay on topic, and am met with hostility.) diff to talk page about ANI
4. John Carter was desysopped several years ago, with the reasons listed pretty much corresponding to his recent behavior. [145]

Current issue:

1. John Carter deleted one of my Talk:Historicity of Jesus comments, without my consent. diff to first deletion
2. When I reverted the delete, and pointed out that he knew better than to delete other users' comments, he deleted it again. diff to second deletion
3. At this point, I consider it an edit war, of sorts (if Talk pages can have those.) If I reverted again, so would he.
4. He posted this “final warning” to my talk page. diff to user talk page warning
5. He added this warning to [[Talk:Historicity of Jesus] ], misrepresenting the talkpage guidelines. diff to talk page warning

Looking at WP:TALKNO, John Carter has:

• Made ad hominem attacks against me,
• Threatened me,
• Misrepresented my comments,
• Deleted my comments,
• Misrepresented WP policy and guidelines, and
• Presented himself as if he has some authority – possibly as an admin.

Administrative action requested:

• I'm bringing this to ANI, as I don't think any other dispute resolution will be effective.
• I'm requesting a short article ban for Historicity of Jesus and Talk:Historicity of Jesus

Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• The deleted comment in question is clearly uncivil sniping, and while I would not personally have considered it severe enough to pull from a talk page, you should not have reverted its removal. Nothing to see here. --erachima talk 23:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It was also restored under the hatnote which he didn't mention. A review of his recent history on the visible article talk page and his own user talk page would indicate warnings are called for. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Forgetting the obviously snippy comments, what POV is he pushing on the talk page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

He has been among other things arguing that nominal Christians and Muslims are incapable of approaching the historicity of Jesus objectively, but that others who have more often than not either rejected some of the Western Christian social morays are, which is at best a dubious assertion considering the psychology of conversion, or that adherents of faiths which would regard the Christian incarnation as basically heretical have no similar biases. Having myself studied religion, I can say everyone in class were much more "nominal" believers than society as a whole, and might like him to meet some of the monks and priests I've met who have in their 40s or 50s acknowledged becoming agnostics or atheists but stay for retirement benefits and their religious friends. John Carter (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not just a POV-push, it's a violation of "no original research". He's betraying his own biases to draw such a conclusion. He has no evidence to support such a broad-brush claim. Deja vu. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Is that based on a thorough examination, or just on taking someone's characterisation of their adversary at face value? Formerip (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

As with the debate a few days ago, he's claiming that a Christian or a Muslim cannot objectively write about the historicity of Jesus. He's got no evidence to support that claim, it's strictly his personal opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

(e-c)It's something that has some support in some circles so its probably more POV than OR. And I forgot to mention the 2 nuns and several non–Catholic agnostic/atheist nominally Christian ministers I've met as well. It was an an arranged meeting of the local "qualifiers" if anyone's curious. I've myself never been a religious and I was there basically as an outsider. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That highlights one of many core issues in this discussion. Precisely what IS a Christian? Another is the matter of what Historicity of Jesus is really about, whether Jesus existed, or whether there is any "scientific" evidence that he existed. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

User:John Carter is completely misrepresenting my position, and my actions. The diffs don't lie: [146]

Beyond this, POV, or what is a Christian, or any of this content related stuff is not an issue in this ANI. The only thing that is at issue is User:John Carter's hostility.Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

There is also this diff which you recently removed from your user talk page with the problematic "Off–topic comments" section in which Huon talks about your other recent micsconduct on the same talk page and your other problematic recent conduct still on the talk page. WP:BOOMERANG indicates that much as you apparently think otherwise your behavior is open to review as well.John Carter (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get in a pissing contest with John Carter. Let's stick to his hostility: He's been accusing me of POV pushing, both in the article talk page diff1diff2, and in another ANI diff to ANI, and he's provided no evidence to substantiate it. Zippo. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Because you'd lose. And you have demonstrated so much arrogance and self–righteousness that Huon had to call you on it before and it very clearly still hasn't apparently gotten through to you yet. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said in the last discussion, this article might benefit from a page move to Academic history of Jesus or something of that matter to determinitively distinguish the difference between religious/faith-based history and scholarly/scientific history.--v/r - TP 01:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll send you a talk page message regarding the article. I'd really like to keep this ANI focused on John Carter's hostility towards me, as it's really getting in the way of improving the article. (He even said that my suggesting the scope of the article should be "the historicity of Jesus" was POV pushing!) Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the editor conduct deserves a reality check, and the language that is being used, even in this ANI post is not acceptable. And you have demonstrated so much arrogance and self–righteousness... It's ridiculous. In short, you give the impression of being a newbie with a profound ego but little real knowledge of the topic and less knowledge or awareness of wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please make an effort to read WP:TPG and try to realize that, despite your own obvious conviction of your personal genius... is wholeheartedly unacceptable and uncivil language while not exactly swearing and not exactly 'confrontorary' language, is anything but civil. Indeed, comments like We have talk page guidelines for a reason whether you are capable of understanding them or not. If you can't understand that please read WP:CIR which is implying that the user is not competent enough to understand policy or guidelines. unless you are a professional in the field, however high your opinion of yourself might be, the authors there probably know more about the subject and are better sources for our content than yourself and your OR speculations regarding their possible is also in my view is unacceptable. This kind of language is what is ambiguously dealt with on noticeboards, and what needs to be policed and enforced more. I advocate that John is put on warning for these comments and should be reminded that he is to act civil and delve into the real content and sources, not about other editors. Tutelary (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've avoided commenting on this before, but based on the while history of this dispute at WP: In my opinion JC is alleging wide-spread biases without evidence, trying to dismiss the work of almost everybody who has ever contributed to the academic or popular discussion of the subject because his own views are different. He has continued doing so to the extend that it is disruptive. His arguments here, that he can not be biased himself against Christians because he has talked to people of that religion, does not make sense to me. (It is even possible that my own views on the matter may be the same as his, but it remains the case that the position at the moment is very much a minority position, tho I would not go so far as to call it fringe, and I don't think it reasonable to pretend otherwise.) TParis, the term universally used for the RW question is Historicity of Jesus. It's not an assertion that Jesus was historically real, it's just a statement that the problem is whether he/He was historically real. "Academic history of Jesus is meaningless. The subject is precisely the question whether the faith-based account corresponds to the biography of a real individual. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

TL;DR version: what DGG said.

The reason why the historicity of Jesus is such a problematic topic on Wikipedia is that the historicity of Jesus is a problematic topic. It is an intersection of scholarly study and religious faith. Gospel scholars can debate whether Mark 13 contains an interpolation of a C1 eschatological text unrelated to the Jesus story or whether the Q-source existed despite there being no contemporary or patristic mention, without matters of faith coming into play.

The historicity of Jesus is different. It involves very deeply held beliefs about the very nature of the world and of existence. For adherents of the Christian faith in its many forms, the historicity of Jesus and its relation to the Jesus of Christianity is something that is perhaps one of the most important things in their lives. For people of other faiths, the historicity of Jesus and its relation to the Jesus of Christianity is - I will not be so presumptuous to make any comment. For non-believers, the historicity of Jesus can be a scholarly topic but often also involves very deeply held beliefs about the very nature of the world and of existence.

In short: JC - please stop making allegations of bias because someone simply disagrees with you.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment

I commented at the talk page, Talk: Historicity of Jesus, earlier this month, that it appears that the combined content disputes (now about whether to split the article into multiple articles) and conduct issues that interfere with resolving the content questions are likely to go to the ArbCom. Unfortunately, that again appears to be the case. Can you (multiple editors) put aside your anger to avoid having the topic area (including any future articles that are split off) placed under discretionary sanctions? Regardless of any other details of an ArbCom final decision, they almost certainly will include discretionary sanctions. For background, there was a filing at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It was declined, with the advice to take the content issues to mediation and the conduct issues here, WP:ANI. (I am not sure that mediation is the right vehicle, but that is my opinion.) I see two editors here, FearOfReprisal and John Carter, who obviously do not like each other, one of whom has been previously sanctioned by the ArbCom with respect to the history of religions. Both FOR and JC: Be civil. Equally importantly, be concise. Long WP:TLDR posts here are a common but useless practice, because they aren't read in detail. If you aren't willing to resolve your issues here, be concise, because the ArbCom doesn't accept walls of text. Enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

My issue with John Carter is resolved as soon as he stops accusing me of misconduct.

As for fixing the longstanding intractable problems with the article -- here are the subjects we need to reach consensus on:

1. The topic of the article. i.e., the "Historicity of Jesus"
2. The definition of the term "historicity" (see Historicity)
3. The article's scope, i.e., the "historicity of Jesus"
4. Topics that are outside the scope of the article, e.g., religious belief, Christ Myth Theory, Historical Jesus

There is currently dispute about every one of these items. So, I suspect that discretionary sanctions will be required in any event. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@FoR, arbitration is the way to proceed. This ANI will likely close for the same reason as the last one - it's not ANI's purview to resolve complex disputes that are a blend of conduct and content issues. Imo, there have been plenty of prior attempts to resolve both issues for ArbCom to take the case. I don't agree that filing a case will result in discretionary sanctions - the Arbs are wise enough to understand that a dispute between two parties isn't going to undermine the encyclopedia. Ignocrates (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I came here solely with a conduct issue. It's everyone else who has added in content issues. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand that you do not control the discussion here. While I believe that there is a very real question whether Ignocrates has once again returned to edit only in regards to something in which I am involved which may qualify as a violation of his interaction ban and I would welcome input from others on whether involvement in this discussion as his only edits in weeks as can be seen here qualifies as stalking and/or other sanctionable conduct as per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3 in their eyes. I also think much if not most of the problems at the article would be resolved if Fear would indicate the sources to establish the notability and weight requirements as per guidelines and policies because I've never seen them clearly indicated. John Carter (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The idea that Christians can be objective about Jesus is silly. If you think someone is the son of God and walked on water and rose from the dead, you're not exactly objective. If you believe denying his historicity will result in eternal torment, you're in no position to be objective. But so what? Does fearofreprisal want to ban Christian editors? I'm not sure how the lack of objectivity can be applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 00:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to try to be as concise as possible here. John Carter continues to be hostile, even in this ANI ("You do not seem to understand that you do not control the discussion here.") This is nothing new. Here are a few relevant diffs:

• Blocked for violating sanctions, Jul 2013: [147]
• ArbCom sanctions personal attacks, Nov 2013: [148] "John Carter has made personal attacks against Ignocrates during the arbitration case"
• Tells ArbCom that he can't control his temper, Nov 2013: [149] "I regret to say that over the years dealing with the comments of others I acknowledge that my temper can, and particularly sometimes around Ignocrates does, get the best of me."
• Resigns as Admin, because of ArbCom, Nov 2013: [150]
• Admits to trying to drive editors off WP through incivility, Nov 2013: [151]
• ArbCom admonishment for disruption and incivility, June 2009: [152]
• Desysopping discussion, Feb 2008: [153]

I'm perfectly happy to try and work with John Carter to improve the Historicity of Jesus article. However...

• If he can't drop the condescension here in ANI, why would I think he might do so in the article and talk page?
• Over his long history on WP, he's not yet contributed a single word to the Historicity of Jesus article. [154] Why would I think he's going to start now?

With no reason to believe that John Carter will change, the only reasonable resolution I can see is for him to be topic-banned from "historicity" related articles. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Since you are going to the trouble of posting details back to 2008, perhaps you wouldn't mind showing a couple of links for current problems? The couple I looked at in the OP show dime-a-dozen commentary that is standard for many contentious topics—they certainly do not justify a topic ban. I don't understand DGG's above comment regarding "bias"—is that something at ANI or a talk page somewhere? I can't see it (certainly the comment at 00:24, 19 August 2014 above shows no problem). I see no link which shows anything unexpected for a topic like this. ANI is for behavior, but my preference would be for someone to point to something that matters, such as who-is-doing-what in an article. Johnuniq (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I posted mostly issues that have happened in the last year. I posted the 2008 diff to show that nothing has changed. It's about context. His "chilling admission regarding the ways he attempts to drive editors off the project through controlled incivility" should give you pause. JC is an experienced former Admin, who uses his knowledge of WP rules to attack users who disagree with him. While JC's comments, considered individually, may be dime-a-dozen commentary, taken together and in context, they show that his pattern of intentional disruption continues.

I accept that it's likely that nothing will be done here to encourage JC to drop his incivility. But I've established a record. If, as he admits, he can't control his temper, we'll be back here soon enough. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)provd

What you completely failed to do is post any indications of your providing the required reliable sources to give reason to make changes as per WP:WEIGHT and other policies and guidelines. Should you continue to engage in such behavior in violation of conduct guidelines we will probably be back sooner than you think very possibly regarding your conduct. John Carter (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Followup

It's not gotten much better. User:John Carter started a section at Talk:Historicity of Jesus#"Historicity” of Jesus or “Historicity of Jesus”?, where I can't figure out what he's talking about. I asked for a WP:THIRDOPINION, and that person couldn't figure out what JC was talking about either. It probably wouldn't matter -- I could just ignore him -- except his incivility is distruptive. The problems with this article are going to eventually go to ArbCom, but I'm trying to get things as cleaned up as possible before then, so we can deal with just one or two fundamental issues. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are going to have to explain an actual problem more clearly. At Talk:Historicity of Jesus we see two sections: "What is historicity?" (in which Fearofreprisal asks for people to share their understanding of what historicity actually is), and the section linked above (in which John Carter lists several sources along with a comment which requires some missing context to understand). I don't see how you could claim the section is "incivility"—it is obviously missing a couple of sentences to explain what it's all about, but is that such a problem? Just ignore it or reply with something like what I've said here. Why would you then add a third section (here) about the same point? My third opinion would be that you all stop talking about who-knows-what and focus on the article. What is the problem in the article? Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This ANI is about conduct, not content. I'll save the discussion on content for ArbCom. Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not right. Arbcom follows a strict (and often counter-productive) policy of not even thinking about content. Perhaps the arbs privately ponder what would be best for the encyclopedia, but public discussions must not deal with content (see WP:Arbitration). At ANI, anything goes. In general, content is not discussed here, but if necessary people will consider underlying issues and might, for example, offer an opinion that an editor should be topic banned because they are adding unhelpful text to articles (with a brief explanation). That's fine here, but does not happen at arbitration. It's unlikely that third parties will want to spend the time becoming familiar with all the background so it's up to people claiming that a problem exists to show links and brief explanations as to why there is a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That's correct. ArbCom will not deal with the content issue. I'm not sure all of the talk page discussion is appropriate, and I do see editors throwing "notaforum" back and forth. Editors trying to decide "What is historicity?" make me uneasy. Although it would be nice, as one editor asks, to have a " universal, clear definition for the term,", I'd be amazed if all the sources who think that they have written on this subject agree. It's just not up to editors to make these decisions. Sure, they can discuss which sources that discuss the meaning of "historicity of Jesus" that they wish to use, but they shouldn't be looking at sources that only discuss "historicity" without discussing Jesus. That's just the way we roll, and if we start opening the door to sources that don't discuss the subject of the article... But the issue is really "What conduct issue are you bringing here?" I do agree with User:Johnuniq - what incivility? Focus on the article, not abstract questions about historicity. And don't add huge templates at the bottom that belong at the top and seem to be there only to be used whack each other over the head. Hm, thinking about that again, Fearofreprisal was being pretty uncivil with that - see Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Need WP:RS citations that show "historicity of Jesus"= "existence of Jesus". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You once again demonstrate a pronounced lack of understanding of wikipedia in the above comment Fear, as you did in the above sections which raises serious WP:CIR issues about you which are not helped at all by the lack of understanding of several policies and guidelines you have already repeatedly displayed on the article talk page. That specifically includes your presumptuous citation demands on that talk page. The fact that you also seem to be insisting on immediate gratification of all your demands is another cause for concern. I have yet to finish the full research of this topic I had previously indicated I was working on and find these rather tendentious demands for immediate gratification of your every whim to be both counterproductive and completely unnecessary. As I already said on the talk page your cause would be much better served if you could find the sources sufficient to establish the notability of the article you want. It is perhaps a not unreasonable question whether you may not be able to establish sch notability on your own and that might be driving your rather disruptive and less than productive postings here. The article was not built in a day nor is it reasonable to assume that major changes to it should be made in a day. Honestly, I believe your conduct in this matter in general raises much more serious concerns about you than anything or anyone else.John Carter (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq - Thank you for the clarification on ArbCom. Is it OK to focus on John Carter's conduct in this ANI, and save content for a subsequent ANI? Or would you rather combine them into an unresolveable mess?

To clarify the conduct issue I'm bringing here: it is WP:POV RAILROADING. Would you like me to add even more diffs to show this, or are the ones I've provided so far (and that User:Tutelary has noted at [155]) sufficient?

A couple of question of how to deal with situations:

John Carter's language towards you is wholeheartedly unacceptable and that has not changed. Even now, he is using patronizing and almost insulting language at you in an attempt at making you leave the site. That is the language that makes other editors leave. When vandals use swear words at other users, they dismiss it outhand because a vandal is usually so easily blocked as they are blatantly disruptive. There are other users on this site that appear to be in it for the long hall, and massively influence content discussions, and when they are met with any resistance, use patronizing and euphemizing language for what would have been the equivalent of swear words from a vandal. I am not and will not get into a content dispute, but for conduct, John Carter needs to knock it off lest he face sanctions for his language. Tutelary (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• When someone posts talk page comments that are personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics, how shall I respond? I used the notaforum template, and Dougweller thought that was uncivil
• How should I respond when someone (in this case, John Carter) post talk page comments that are either so ungrammatical, unparseable, or elliptical as to be impossible to understand? I've tried asking -- repeatedly -- what the JC meant, and even got a WP:THIRDOPINION, and have had no luck. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

More negative interactions with John Carter

This is truly getting old. It's really a challenge to *not* be snippy to hostile comments such these:

• Today in Talk:Historicity of Jesus: [156][157]
• Here in ANI: [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165]

As I said before, this is part of a pattern of WP:POV railroading. John Carter is using false narratives, policy misuse, and incivility to try and discredit me, or drive me away. His behavior is indidious, and is not likely to stop without administrative action. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Minor Edit 00:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No this is part of an ongoing attempt at badgering and harassment while also engaging in WP:IDHT by the above editor and I personally would welcome any input from uninvolved editors as to whether this behavior on the above editors part perhaps merits some degree of administrative action against him for his misuse of this page to attempt to bully others into accepting him making changes which are in no way necessarily supported by existing policies and guidelines. His recent indication on the talk page that he believes a subject being mentioned on two pages of a book is sufficient to count as a proof of notability is one of several indicators of possible lack of competence on his part.John Carter (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

John - no comment on the rest of Fearofreprisal's comments - but you are aware that WP:CIR says "don't link this to the guy you think has a competency problem" right?--v/r - TP 00:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for sanctions

JC has been sanctioned by the ArbCom two times, and was recently blocked for violating sanctions. He is an unapologetic recidivist. (See the ArbCom motion on recidivism here: [166].)

I am requesting that he be given a 1 month topic ban on historicity, and a permanent interaction ban with me. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again you have thrown a pile of diffs which show nothing unusual for a contentious topic. The only "bad" thing in them is that you were directed to WP:CIR, and that has already been dealt with above in TP's comment at 00:59, 23 August 2014. There is still no explanation of what the underlying issue is, and no recognition of the fact that when two people of bickering, ANI should not be used to knock one of them out with lame links. People at ANI just want the disruption to stop, so a quick fix might be to topic ban Fearofreprisal and John Carter from all articles and talk pages related to Jesus for one week. After that time, it would be easier to decide who is behaving inappropriately, starting from a clean slate. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq - You may have missed User:Tutelary's comments, at 16:27, 22 August 2014:

John Carter's language towards you is wholeheartedly unacceptable and that has not changed. Even now, he is using patronizing and almost insulting language at you in an attempt at making you leave the site. That is the language that makes other editors leave. When vandals use swear words at other users, they dismiss it outhand because a vandal is usually so easily blocked as they are blatantly disruptive. There are other users on this site that appear to be in it for the long hall, and massively influence content discussions, and when they are met with any resistance, use patronizing and euphemizing language for what would have been the equivalent of swear words from a vandal. I am not and will not get into a content dispute, but for conduct, John Carter needs to knock it off lest he face sanctions for his language. [167]

John Carter's comments to me in this matter are similar to the personal attacks he was sanctioned for by the ArbCom.[168] They are not "business as usual." And, though most people might be forgiven for such comments, John Carter is a former Admin, who has been twice sanctioned by ArbCom. Do you really think he should get a "pass" on conduct he knows to be improper?

It is unfair and inaccurate for you to say "There is still no explanation of what the underlying issue is." I have indeed explained that the underlying issue is WP:POV railroading by User:John Carter. I've provided detail. If it's not good enough, possibly you can explain the level of detail you need.

Ultimately, if there's a consensus to impose a WP:CBAN on me, I'll understand. But I still reiterate my request to have John Carter interaction banned and topic banned. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can post their opinion here. My view is stated above, and of course I did not miss Tutelary's comment. Your reply does not address what I wrote, and I previously mentioned that posting links to old stuff is not helpful. What's needed is brief text and/or links that address the current issue. Please do not post any more links to essays or other disputes (you don't imagine that linking to "WP:POV railroading" is an explanation?). If there is a succinct explanation of the underlying issue somewhere, please post a link. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

OK -- I'll try again. The current issues are false narratives, Policy misuse, and incivility by John Carter. The underlying issue is that he jumps into discussions I've started, and attempts to marginalize me by lying about or distorting what I've said, misrepresenting WP policies and guidelines, and using subtly insulting and demeaning language. He appears to be repeating his admitted tactic of using incivility to drive away editors with whom he does not agree.

Following are quotes from him. While some of his statements are combinations of false narrative, policy misuse, and incivility, I've tried to group them in a reasonable way.

Each of the following statements is a false narrative:

...none of the statements you made above have been sourced and your own extremely obvious history of basically demanding that this article conform not to policies or guidelines but to what is apparently your own extreme preconceptions of what it should be about.

Regarding your continuing insistence as above that this article must be changed according to your own personal schedule...

Your apparently ongoing insistence that everybody else must act according to your time schedule is extremely problematic.

I very strongly suggest a certain obvious POV pusher refrain from further presumptuous pontification and if I were that editor I would not expect any more warnings regarding misconduct before an ANI discussion on that editor's conduct is initiated.

The phrasing of the lead before a rather single-minded POV pusher, specifically, you, came in would be I think a reasonable place to start because that seemed to have some consensus which few of your own edits seem to have.

What an odd statement for you to make, conesidering I don't know that to date you have provided a single sourcewhich explicitly supports your apparently OR conclusion of academic bias yourself.

...I do see how you continue yourself to continue to engage in personal attacks as perWP:NPA.

He has been among other things arguing that nominal Christians and Muslims are incapable of approaching the historicity of Jesus objectively, but that others who have more often than not either rejected some of the Western Christian social morays are, which is at best a dubious assertion considering the psychology of conversion, or that adherents of faiths which would regard the Christian incarnation as basically heretical have no similar biases.

There is also this diff which you recently removed from your user talk page with the problematic "Off–topic comments" section in which Huon talks about your other recent micsconduct on the same talk page and your other problematic recent conduct still on the talk page.

What you completely failed to do is post any indications of your providing the required reliable sources to give reason to make changes as perWP:WEIGHT and other policies and guidelines. Should you continue to engage in such behavior in violation of conduct guidelines we will probably be back sooner than you think very possibly regarding your conduct.

You once again demonstrate a pronounced lack of understanding of wikipedia in the above comment Fear, as you did in the above sections which raises serious WP:CIR issues about you which are not helped at all by the lack of understanding of several policies and guidelines you have already repeatedly displayed on the article talk page. That specifically includes your presumptuous citation demands on that talk page. The fact that you also seem to be insisting on immediate gratification of all your demands is another cause for concern.

No this is part of an ongoing attempt at badgering and harassment while also engaging in WP:IDHT by the above editor and I personally would welcome any input from uninvolved editors as to whether this behavior on the above editors part perhaps merits some degree of administrative action against him for his misuse of this page to attempt to bully others into accepting him making changes which are in no way necessarily supported by existing policies and guidelines. His recent indication on the talk page that he believes a subject being mentioned on two pages of a book is sufficient to count as a proof of notability is one of several indicators of possible lack of competence on his part

Each of the following statements is a policy misuse:

Unfortnately as a thorough review of the existing talk page would reveal that is not the definition or scope of the article Fear personally wants to see although as has also already been at least implied there seems to be a very real question whether he can establish the notability of that topic as per WP:NOTABILITY and other relevant guides.

I also believe notability as per WP:NOTABILITY may well be relevant as the works to be used to establish notability have to be significantly about the topic rather than just one topic among several they discuss.

If you honestly believe that being mentioned on just two pages in a single book of clearly over four hundred pages is sufficient to establish the notability of that topic then I believe that it would very much be in your own interests to thoroughly acquaint yourself with all aspects of WP:NOTABILITY and also with WP:CIR. (He wants me to establish the notability of the topic "the historicity of Jesus", which is already the topic of the article.)

The one you have been wanting to change it to per the sections above. The one you have still so far as I can tell found no sources to establish the specific notabiity of. Regarding your difficulties of understanding, well, you seem perhaps to have had difficulties understanding such things as WP:NOTABILITY,WP:WEIGHT, and other similar subjects as well.

If you could produce sources as WP:BURDEN pretty much requires of you to demonstrate the specific notability of the question of whether academics are capable of reviewing this question without being overwhelming influenced by personal bias no one would have any problems about seeing that article exist.

WP:DUE and related pages are the most directly relevant guides here and it indicates that material for inclusion is judged based on the degree of attention given in independent reliable sources directly relating to the subject at hand. As none of the sources you indicate seem to relate directly to the subject of this article they cannot really be used to indicate relevance or degree of attention to give those ideas in this particular article.

Each of the following statements is incivility:

The comments in the last sentence are frankly beneath contempt and not deserving a direct reply as they seem to indicate you indulging in pure emotionalism.

Regarding your difficulties of understanding, well, you seem perhaps to have had difficulties understanding such things as WP:NOTABILITY,WP:WEIGHT, and other similar subjects as well.

Because you'd lose. And you have demonstrated so much arrogance and self–righteousness that Huon had to call you on it before and it very clearly still hasn't apparently gotten through to you yet.

You do not seem to understand that you do not control the discussion here.

I have yet to finish the full research of this topic I had previously indicated I was working on and find these rather tendentious demands for immediate gratification of your every whim to be both counterproductive and completely unnecessary.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any community topic ban. It is true that User:John Carter has already been sanctioned in a related topic area, also in the history of religion, but that was after a full evidentiary hearing. This dispute has the unpleasant mix of content issues and conduct issues that also call for a full evidentiary hearing. Send to ArbCom rather than generating heat with little light at the noticeboards. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any action against John Carter, his concerns at Historical Jesus seem on review entirely reasonable/justified. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for topic ban of Fearofreprisal

I believe a reasonable review of the article talk page woulud raise in the eyes of most people serious questions whether that individual suffers from some form of significant cognitive impairment. This includes the length of time he had engaged in rather pointless self-serving monologing specifically including a thread title ending in a rather ridiculously pompous "I'll explain" at Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Author doesn't understand what he posted is not Historicity, But is the history of Jesus according to folklore. The article is incorrect. I'll explain." All of that it should be noted was done without providing a single source other than a definition of the term "historicity." His single-minded fixation on the definition of the term as can be seen in multiple threads he has started on the article talk page including the one linked to above and Talk:Historicity of Jesus#What is historicity? despite indicators from others that his opinion regarding that matter is not necessarily clearly supported by any policies or guidelines is another indicator that he may have some form of significant cognitive inability to deal with any degree of ambiguity. In addition to these concerns I believe a review of the sources he has provided to attempt to establish the significance of the topic of the historicity of Jesus according to his favored definition here not only fail to provide any evidence of the true notability of that subject but would also raise questions about WEIGHT considerations in other articles. It also could very easily be the case that Fear has recognized this and is seeking to use the ongoing commentary here in this thread which is itself dubiously founded on any reasonable grounds as an attempt at intimidation or harassment to attempt to quell any objections to his single-minded attempts at basically hijacking a rather poor article and making it worse. These concerns are not alleviated in any way by his regular comments here and on the talk page which seem to indicate that he seems to believe contrary to policies and guidelines that this page and that one are basically soapboxing and that any attempt to introduce for discussion anything other than the single topic he wants to discuss is not relevant and not worthy of his addressing.

In summary I believe he has provided numerous serious indicators that he as an individual may not be competent to reasonably edit at least in this topic area. That being the case I believe it is not irrational to request that he be banned from the topic area and any discussion of it elsewhere so that his disruptive influence can be removed any the editors involved given more of a chance to concentrate on improving and developing the topic area without his distractions and disruptive influence. John Carter (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I stopped reading at "significant cognitive impairment". Not sure this is accomplishing anything but perpetuating gratuitous insults. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • But as you yourself said you apparently stopped reading at the first sentence so you would have no way of being sure what even the rest of the comment contained or what might be accomplished by well maybe reading the entire comment would you? John Carter (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Regards the "pompous thread" John Carter mentioned -- he has confused me with someone else. Follow his link, and you'll see that it was written by an IP editor, Not me. (Though I did respond to it, saying "If you'd like to help improve this article, you're going to need to do some more homework, and try to build consensus for change.") This is not the first time he's pointed to other people's posts when talking about me.

I don't really want to engage with John Carter if at all possible, but thought I should mention this issue, just for the record. I rather figure that, if we can't get a consensus here on ANI, this is going to have to go to ArbCom. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• @John Carter: A carefully worded attempted character assassination. However, not careful enough. How you think this avoids NPA is beyond me. I predict an in-bound boomerang soon. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Based on edits on Jesus article, there is a problem with Fearofreprisal's edits - I don't watch the centre of the teacup here at Historical Jesus article so my watchlist beeped with the overflow into the Jesus article: I just saw the diff before this and clicked "thank" on the editor who reverted the addition (whose name I don't recognize but thanks anyway) and now I see that Fearofreprisal has forced through his rather outlying "Jesus of Galilee" addition to the lede over 3 other editors User:Hazhk (here) User:FutureTrillionaire and User:Tom harrison and having forced it through a 4th time against all 3 of them (and presumably a 5th time if I followed my instinct and became the 4th editor to revert the addition) and Fearofreprisal threatens (Undid revision 622607118 by Tom harrison (talk) "Now at WP:3RR Next stop is WP:AN3". To the best of my knowledge, when you make an innovative addition to a highly visible/controversial articles lead and get reverted by 3 different editors, you don't threaten the 3 editors reverting you with "Now at WP:3RR Next stop is WP:AN3". Am I wrong? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, In ictu oculi, you are wrong. My edit was factual, non-controversial, and was supported by proper citations to reliable sources. When it was reverted (after having been up for 4 days), I followed the WP:BRD cycle (posting a talk page discussion), but three other editors failed to make an effort to gain consensus, and reverted the edit without discussion. I did not break the WP:3RR rule, but when it became clear that this was an edit war, I posted a complaint at WP:AN3. See [169] I've followed WP guidelines and policy, and have done nothing wrong. This issue has nothing to so with this ANI, and is a distraction that can only confuse the issue. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: I declined Fearofreprisal's report at AN3. There was no violation, and I view the report as an attempt to game AN3 to gain an advantage in a content dispute. BRD is an essay, not policy. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Based on Fearofreprisal's comment just above, and that he's been here since 2010 and so should know better by now, nothing but a topic ban for some period of time seems likely to help. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Actroterion: - If I misused AN3, it was a good faith mistake, trying to resolve a content dispute. I don't understand how posting an AN3 would actually "gain an advantage," or how it is WP:Gaming the system. Could you explain?

@Tom harrison: - I've actually been on Wikipedia since 2005. Shouldn't you mention that you were involved in this recent content dispute? It seems only fair. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You were trying to get those who disagreed with you blocked for disagreeing with you. Since you claim to have been around since 2005, I don't see that as a naive or good-faith action. Acroterion (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Support topic ban - based on User:Fearofreprisal's own response above = WP:IDHT, + the misuse of WP:AN3/ WP:Gaming the system/refusal by Acroterion, + having since above accused a 4th editor (equally uninvolved User:Calidum) at Talk:Jesus for having been the 4th editor to revert the edition, + John Carter being nowhere in sight on the Jesus/Talk:Jesus edits, find that the root of the problem is actually Fearofreprisal themselves. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Acroterion - I was not trying to get anyone blocked. In the AN3, I related what happened, accurately, and with no name calling. My goal was to find a resolution to a dispute. That's all. So far as I know, no one involved did anything that was blockable. I may have used the wrong noticeboard, but it wasn't bad faith.

In ictu oculi: WP:IDHT applies to disruptive editing, not to noticeboard conversations. I have "since" done nothing with Calidum, as the timestamp on your diff shows. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDHT very much applies to noticeboard conversations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll accept what you say. Wouldn't want you to think I don't "get the point." (Groan.)Fearofreprisal

Fearofreprisal, the "since" refers to my own prediction that if I was the fourth editor to revert you you'd do similar, Calidum did what I was tempted to do and you did what you did "since" I saw your reaction to the 1st 2nd and 3rd editors who reverted you. That is the "since/after/following". User:Robert McClenon, as above John Carter is not even on the Jesus / Talk:Jesus page so my comments and support of a topic ban relate to there. A Jesus article ban would also be beneficial to non-timewasting. As editors who watchlist it know Jesus (the page I mean, no comment on the individual) is a fringe magnet, and Fearofreprisal is now demonstrating WP:IDHT further at Talk:Jesus by starting an RFC on his n times reverted addition. Legally that may be the way, but listening is a better option, and this editor can't or won't. If he's going to threaten other editors when they revert him that's also not benefical behaviour to be encouraged. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

In ictu oculi - it's difficult to have a conversation with someone who is committed to playing the WP:IDHT card. Here is a link to the RfC.[170] People can decide for themselves if I'm not listening. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose a community topic ban on User:Fearofreprisal. His or her conduct has not been exemplary, but neither has that of User:John Carter, the proposer (who has already been sanctioned for tendentious editing on this general area, the history of religions). This dispute is the sort that community sanctions (based on which party has the louder entourage) do not work well on, and that should have a full evidentiary hearing. Send to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• WP:BOOMERANG - Cwobeel (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:71.202.1.48 again

A few days ago 71.202.1.48 complained, both here and at WP:AN, that administrator User:Deb was "vandalizing" May 22 in what was actually a content dispute. When the IP continued to engage in disruptive claims, he was blocked. Deb then offered, on his talk page, to work with him after he came off block. An argument about the edits that she had made has now resulted in this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A71.202.1.48&diff=622642381&oldid=622578633

The IP claims that Deb is "being rude" and is "prevaricating", which are personal attacks. I suggest a revocation of talk page privilege until the block expires. (This is a Verizon IP address, and Verizon IP addresses often expire and are reassigned after about a week, so that an extension of the block could cause collateral damage.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP has been notified. Since the IP is blocked, any reply will be on his talk page, so please give him a day or so (and it is now 2245 in New York and 2145 in Chicago) to reply before revoking talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, Robert, I think that if I just stay away from his talk page, that will resolve the problem. He obviously isn't listening so there is no point in me continuing to try to put my side of the case. Deb (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat by Deletebots

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.

---

Deletebots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Stated "DELETE THE PAGE BEFORE I SUE WIKIPEDIA FOR PUTTING MY NAME AND INFORMATION UP ON A WEBSITE. DELETE IT NOW." here Jim1138 (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

DELETE THE PAGE. I DONT CARE WHAT YOU SEND TO ADMINISTRATORS. DELETE THE PAGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletebots (talk • contribs)

• Yeah... no. Blocked per WP:NLT. And general harassment/hostility. --Jayron32 05:23, 24 August 2014 (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.

Quick addition

For the benefit of those worried about WP:DOLT, the article the editor appears to be concerned about was already up for AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ty-Keem Sadler before the editor came along. Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Could somebody please fix this?

Content dispute: nothing requiring administrator action. (Non-admin close) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The very first image currently being used to illustrate the "Woman" article is a picture of Laverne Cox. If Wikipedia wants to describe women as females, the inclusion of this image is incorrect. Cox is not a female according to Wikipedia's own definition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.123.53 (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC) This is a content dispute. Take it up on the talk page. There was a discussion there, and consensus was reached on the subject of adding the picture of a transwoman to the lead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Assistance with Creature of Havoc

Dear all, I was hoping for some assistance with the article Creature of Havoc, and some advice as to how to proceed. A person using multiple IP addresses from the same location ([171]) has displayed strong ownership of the article, and despite many attempts at mediation continues to insist on their version. The entire discussion can be found at Talk:Creature of Havoc. It started with the IP user issuing ultimatums (and not signing posts), and despite an eventual block and having one of their comments directed towards me removed, this person continues to display the same behaviour (the latest claim being that I am a poor writer). I am happy to work with this person on what is a relatively minor issue if the Conduct policies can be observed, but so far we have had breaches of civility, edit warring, harrassment/personal attacks and of course ownership. I have found this to be disheartening, as I and some other editors (who seem like really nice people) have made great strides with the other Fighting Fantasy articles. Can someone please advise as to how to proceed? Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Asgardian: If it's a simple content dispute, then you can try dispute resolution. The best way to deal with disruptive IP editors on a dynamic IP range is to request temporary page protection. On talk pages, it's difficult to really do much about them. In extreme cases, talk pages can be protected, but simple incivility would not qualify. If the user becomes disruptive on the talk page, you can point out our talk page guidelines. Frequently, it's best to just ignore disruptive comments on the talk page, and people will usually exhaust themselves after ranting for a while. If they don't, you can try following the advice listed there, but keep in mind that reverting or censoring talk page comments often does nothing inflame tensions and drama. I've cleaned up the article a bit, but I don't think you're going to like my edits. The reception section was sourced to self-published sources, such as blogs and wikis, and I removed them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the IP editor has not been friendly or helpful, and I agree with NinjaRobotPirate that the article may not be notable: I've nominated it for deletion. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

SqueakBox again

Is a future hit list/black list like this one allowed in Wikipedia? User:SqueakBox weeks ago raised a big drama with the blanking & proposing for deletion of the List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films article (see the relevant ANI discussion). Now, the AfD discussion is closed for weeks and the article was kept, restored and sourced, and a related RFC was closed as well, but SqueakBox seems to be unhappy with the outcome and clearly is not done. He now started some sort of a provocative hit page with a list of editors who reverted him, marked as BLP violators "who may be blocked", with diffs which dates at the time of the dispute, more than 20 days ago. The list looks a patent violation of WP:USERPAGE (see WP:UPNOT) and a blatant case of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, as it does not serve any scope outside keeping a personal war against a few editors who disagreed with him. Also note a while ago SqueakBox also filled an out of time request for mediation about the same topic. I ask the black list-page is deleted and SqueakBox once and for all drop the stick. --Cavarrone 23:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This does not meet speedy deletion criteria. It should be settled via our regular deletion debate forums, or you could just ignore it.

Did you explain your concerns to the user? You should really try to work this out directly before seeking admin attention. Chillum 23:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I obviously tried to discuss on my talk page, see User_talk:Cavarrone#FYI. Cavarrone 23:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I see, thank you for pointing that out. Chillum 23:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• As much as I'd like to see it deleted, its just more evidence of Squeak's disruptive attitude. The most important thing is that we know about it and it can be used against him in the future. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a bad idea. Unless it's being used to create an RFC/U draft, it probably shouldn't exist. It's just going to create more drama. I thought we were done with this topic, but apparently not. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I seem to remember an incident like this before, where an editor had a list on their user page - it was quickly removed by several admins (and possibly revdel'd, don't remember). This being a subpage, it should probably be MfD'd or possibly G10'd. Ansh666 00:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This does not meet the criteria of G10. Chillum 00:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I remember the words "attack page" being invoked for something similar, or maybe I'm just getting confused with something else... Ansh666 00:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It's an obvious "hit list" and it has to go. A good admin should delete it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We have a place to decide if content is appropriate for user pages. It is called WP:MfD. Chillum 00:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you an admin? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Since Nov 2006. Chillum 00:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

[ecxn]I've also asked them not to mention my username on their page in this way, though I haven't yet received a response.[172] MFD isn't an appropriate or helpful place to hear this. It should be removed immediately by the user themselves if not an admin, as seven days is too long to wait, and it's a behavior question not a content one. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not just some stupid, lame page to be palmed off on MfD. This is a personal-attack page, and an admin needs to zap it pronto. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:USER says "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.", so this is not an open a shut case, which is why I suggest MfD. Compiling policy violations is not automatically a personal attack, I think that is an oversimplification. If squeak is not preparing for a dispute resolution process then he should remove it now. Chillum 00:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha. It's a list of alleged BLP violations, which aren't actually BLP violations, it's just stuff that Squeaky doesn't like. He has no intention of filing an RfC/U, it's just an attack page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If you read the discussion on my talk page, the the only claimed scope of this page according his words is "making records", "given that BLP violators were trying to get ME topic banned I am well within my rights to log BLP violations". [173] Cavarrone 00:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@SqueakBox: Could you please just store this in a text editor? Could you just short circuit yet another pointless debate about very nearly nothing? Chillum 00:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The user's talk page is thataway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

of course I can just store it in a text editor, and i have already backed it up there. Am I actually doing anything wrong here? Seems to me a group of editors have got it in me for me and continuously bring me up here even though I have done nothing wrong. The page solely indicates BLP violations and which editor did them without linking ot the editors. I am storing them precisely because I feel this group of editors is out to harrass me when I have done nothing wrong but they have, ie the BLP violations I have simply linked to. This is meant to be a private page in my user space and I suggest if people want to see it deleted they need to go through the proper processes to achieve that, and an AN/I report is NOT the proper process. Is this the way we treat all editors who enforce BLP or just the ones who do so with porn? I am seeking mediation and this page is part of that process, it is not a hit list, and I am not out to get anybody, merely to protect my right to enforce BLP on contentious pages involving porn. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Will you please remove my name from your list of BLP violators, or whatever it is you're accusing us of? And please don't accuse me of bad faith, etc. That makes the editing environment around here unnecessarily difficult. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Since your comment indicates this is not for a future dispute resolution, I've deleted the page under criteria G10. If you restore the material, you may be blocked.--v/r - TP 01:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"I am seeking mediation and this page is part of that process", I read that as meaning that it was part of dispute resolution. Regardless I have had my say on the matter. Chillum 01:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"I am storing them precisely because I feel this group of editors is out to harrass me when I have done nothing wrong but they have, ie the BLP violations I have simply linked to. This is meant to be a private page in my user space" comes off to me differently. But I'll admit I didn't see that comment when I read it the first time.--v/r - TP 01:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• I accidentally xfd'd the page as TParis deleted it. Please delete Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SqueakBox/BLP. Whoops. KonveyorBelt 01:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I have spoken to TPari before I institute deletion review. I think Konveyor was right and speedy was not the appropriate way to remove thos page whoch merely pointed out BLP violations. Or would people rather I opened a thread to see if an admin will block editors who persistently flout our BLP policies, cos that is what the diffs were for. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The right way was for you to CSD U1'd this page from the get-go. No admin is going to block editors on your order just because you didn't get a consensus at an RFC. It's time to WP:Drop the stick--v/r - TP 01:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Err I havent asked an admin to block anyone. And besides you dont speak for all admins so how do you know no admin is going to block for said violations, or perhaps even the arbcom in the longer run? You dont. For the record I am involved in a mediation process here Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Porn and BLP. How I am supposed to compile evidence for that? Why do you want to prevent me from compiling evidence for a dispute resolution? WP:USER says "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.". ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep it in a text file on your PC until (or if) you actually use it to create an RfC/U or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I did back it up thanks. I created the page for mediation and if that doesnt work, which it may not looking at the 3 rejections of mediation so far, it will then have to go to Rfc, this was always on my mind, and I need a space on wikipedia where I can dot his work. If other editors are allowed to compile diffs for dispute resolution it strikes me that I should be too. I have instigated DR because I think Chillum is right that Mfd is what is required. All I want is to be given the same opportunities to pursue dispute resolution as other editors. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Squeak isn't calling for blocks? Me at least twice[174][175] and others too I believe. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That was NOT my calling for you to be blocked, it was pointing out that restoring BLP violations is a blockable offence. I have said this various times,. inc on the deleted page but I have not called for any individual editor to be blocked. Andy the Grup asked for Scalhotrod to be blocked for persistent BLP violations but that was not at my behest. I pointed out the policy to point out the seriousness of the violations but do not personally believe blocking is a good solution, that is my personal belief, being a great dela more liberal than some of you think. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep that thing on your PC until or if you actually file a complaint with it. And lose the stuff at the top about how everybody's out to get you. A filing with that kind of verbiage will be shot down faster than a government drone in a red state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Squeak, whatever kind of block threat that is not a block threat you are promoting, please don't do it. Don't proclaim in your edit summaries, article talk pages, or process pages that other editors' behavior is blockable. It's unnecessarily antagonistic. And don't name me in an RfC, that kind of retaliation sheer tendentiousness. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Content restored at the mediation request here. That is the appropriate place.--v/r - TP 06:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• TParis - except that at least 3 people decline to join that RfM, so... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably because it's a bad-faith complaint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yea this won't go anywhere because you really shouldn't start off a mediation request with when did you stop beating your wife. It essentially states Squeak is right and everyone else can pound sand, even though that isn't what the closed discussions say at all. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• SqueakBox should be banned. Not so much for the "attack list" per se, which I don't care much, but he's just trolling this project at this point. We don't need him, he doesn't need us. Let us show the door. --cyclopia^speak! 14:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• I haven't looked into the backstory enough to know whether I agree with cyclopia, but I'm glad somebody finally put the issue in those terms. Squeakbox's insistence in keeping that list on-wiki looks like pure pointy disruption as far as I can tell. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Just for the record, IP: SqueakBox's position is completely the opposite (SB wants that article gone). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• I meant Squeakbox's list of diffs in userspace, not the contested article with the list of actors. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Bastard Race

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, Can we get talk page revoked on the above blocked sock please, abusing talk page while blocked. Amortias (T)(C) 21:14, 25 August 2014 (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.

Deletion review

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.

---

Sorry if this isn't the most appropriate place but it looks like the non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009–10 Liga Bet by User:MrScorch6200 was not appropriate. Could someone open a deletion review, please? Thanks, C679 20:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:DRV is the correct place to request a deletion review. Tutelary (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2014 (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 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.

---

While it's true DRV could resolve this, Wikipedia:NACD#Non-administrators_closing_discussions also allows for any administrator to revert a NAC. In this case, I agree that the debate was inappropriately closed, and have reverted and relisted. Hopefully consensus can be achieved through another 7 days; at the present point in the discussion, there definitely isn't any, and the non-adminstrator erred in closing it. Daniel (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Daniel: That policy states nothing about an admin having the ability to revert an NAC closure based on the admin's interpretation of the consensus (i.e. they disagree with the NA's interpretation). That is why we have DRV. When the policy says, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." It is referring to the five bullets above it:

• Deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and taking account of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, please avoid closing discussions.
• Non-administrators should not close discussions in which they lack the technical ability to act upon the outcome.
• Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator.
• In cases where an administrator has deleted a page, including by speedy deletion, but forgot to close the discussion, anyone may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale.
• Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page in which you have a vested interest (i.e. a page that you have edited heavily) should be avoided. The sole exception is if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well.

MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of that wording, sorry. It clearly allows any NAC to be reverted by an administrator if the administrator feels it was closed incorrectly. This has been practice for years since that wording was introduced. Daniel (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Daniel: So you are telling me an admin can arbitrarily revert an NAC closure based on their own agenda not listed in that policy? That's unbelievable and is against WP:BURO. I still believe this needs to go to DRV, which was already pointed to. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Any administrator can revert any non-administrator's closure if they feel it was incorrect, yes. "Agenda" is entirely the wrong word and inappropriately emotive. I was involved in the discussions back in 2007 that set up this policy and that was the agreed-upon check-and-balance that allowed non-admins to close XfD discussions. I am travelling at the moment but, if required, I can find any number of examples of it occuring over the past 7 years. It does not need to go to DRV for an administrator to reopen a debate closed by a non-administrator. Daniel (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." doesn't say why an admin can revert the closure so logic tells me that the statement is paired with the criteria above it. Also, your statement, "Any administrator can revert any non-administrator's closure if they feel it was incorrect..." almost blatantly goes against the purpose of WP:DRV and goes against WP:Equality in the sense that it gives an admin the 'ability' to revert a closure a non-admin is 'allowed' to revert. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 05:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it because you did not judge consensus correctly, it was not a "keep" consensus or even remotely close. Isn't that point a)? DRV's purpose is for reviewing an administrator's closure. Sorry, I genuinely feel that I was acting in accordance with the guideline there, based upon its application over the past 7 years, and there are countless examples in the archive of this noticeboard to demonstrate that. Daniel (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it actually isn't the first point. "keep" was my interpretation of the consensus. Point 1 refers to someone who closes based on their opinion, not their interpretation of consensus. Also, DRV has no clear prejudice against the closer's userrights. Once again, you can't tell me that I judged consensus wrong because it is my interpretation; it's fine if you disagree. It's like saying me liking the Broncos over the Seahawks is incorrect. DRV clearly states (for usage of DRV), "1 .if someone believes the closer [doesn't say admin, like you argued] of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;". You are taking it upon yourself to revert a closure that should go to DRV. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 05:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, you really need to stop altering your response multiple times after posting it - I have edit conflicted every single time I have tried to respond to your comments, and in the latest case, have lost my comment entirely. It's really quite poor form.

I had a longer response to your most recent comment, but I'm not rewriting it due to your frequent edit conflicts. Our disagreement boils down to conflicting interpretations of the policy. Ultimately, I'm not going to change my course of action, so in my opinion your best course of action would be to invest your energies on the talk page of the policy and try to amend it there. My action falls in line with common practice over the past 7 years, regardless of how you try and cite individual words from different pages to claim it is incorrect, and ultimately I have the courage of my convictions that I am entitled, as an administrator, to revert your NAC because it was not an accurate reflection of consensus. Daniel (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"...I am entitled, as an administrator, to revert your NAC because it was not an accurate reflection of consensus." I can't believe how you continue to contradict the usage of DRV because you believe I was incorrect in my interpretation of consensus. The community should, not you. This statement was the craziest thing I heard since Obama said airstrikes on ISIS "would take time". MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 06:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Just posting to confirm Daniel's statement of policy is correct. It is perfectly normal for an admin to revert a NAC if they think the closer got it wrong. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Spartaz: Once again, completely contradictory to the use DRV. I also encourage you to comment on the linked RfC below. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 06:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Please see WT:DPR#RfC: Can admins revert NACs if they disagree with the closer's interpretation of consensus (WP:NACD), pertaining to AfD?. I encourage you to comment. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 06:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Having been a DRV regular since 2006 and an admin since 2007 and having closed thousands of AFDs and being the main closer of DRVs for the best part of a year, I'm confident that I have the experience in policy and practise around this to speak confidentally when I confirm that your close was correctly reverted. You are now making yourself look petty by refusing to accept the advice of two very experienced admins and frankly this does not reflect well on your ability to work collegiately with others or recognise a consensus. Please step away from the dead horse.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I never reverted his reversion because I wanted to discuss it with him. I'm a little heated right now so I think I might take a one-day Wikibreak. I am "refusing to accept" your "advice" because I believe you are incorrect, or at least the guideline is. Also, I never said that I now still agree or disagree with my close. I do believe it was controversial, but am not debating that. I am debating his ability to reverse it. Please, re-read this thread to ensure yourself I did none of the previously stated actions. And yes, I can't work collegiality with others because I only resolve disputes at DRN and not MedCom. Best and happiest of regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 06:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Its a very good thing you didn't revert him because that would have been disruptive. The language at NAC is very clear Inappropriate early closures may either be reverted by an administrator ("Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator", from Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions) or could result in a successful request to redo the process at Wikipedia:Deletion review. . Taking a break is a great idea. I hope you have better perspective on this when you come back. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I know it would've been disruptive, but so was his revert per WP:TPO - which applies to AfD. Also, read that first one a bit more carefully, "Inappropriate early closures may either be reverted by an administrator... [redacted - I already disputed this line above. Also, it only applies to the bullets listed above it; it is not a non exhaustive list] ...or could result in a successful request to redo the process at Wikipedia:Deletion review" That essay says nothing about reverting due to disagreeing over interpretation of consensus. Time to sleep, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 07:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• To me (admin since 2003) it is clear that the rule allows an admin to reopen any AFD closed by a non-admin. The admin should be willing to explain the action, but that's true of all administrative actions. The dot-points are advice to the closing non-admin and don't restrict the reopening admin. Zero^talk 08:05, 25 August 2014 (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:Deass

And his many socks 86.29.182.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) / 86.23.68.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) / 86.25.33.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) / 86.31.229.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) / 86.27.20.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) / 86.31.22.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) among others continue to edit and copy and paste text into Wikipedia. Wondering about a range block? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

For some context, this is a long-time editor who has been blocked under a variety of other usernames and IPs over many years, including User:Yid, User:Nuklear, User:Aschwole. My feeling is that the contributions are mostly made in good faith, but the individual's behavior is often problematic (everything from copyright violations to original research, an unwillingness to abide by consensus, poor writing skills, scientific inaccuracies, etc.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Doc, I don't know what those long IP blocks will accomplish--they seem to be quite dynamic. A range block is the best option and, given Ed's note, an SPI. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Far too large and busy a range for a rangeblock, I'm afraid (it's Virgin Media UK, with some 5 million customers on dynamic IPs). Is semi-protection a possibility? Or are the edits similar enough that an edit filter could work? Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'd consider removing those long IP blocks as well, since the editor will already have moved on to another IP. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree they are not doing it maliciously. They are simply unable to understand how to edit Wikipedia. Their edits are of one specific type. They always add information on drug synthesis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Troll smashers needed, preferably with a banhamma

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.

---

At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 25. Go see for yourselves. Not notifying on purpose. Sorry for the short report, I'm on mobile and I gotta run to class now. Thanks, Ansh666 20:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been taken care of, thanks. Ansh666 22:06, 25 August 2014 (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.

Big Brother 16

User King1559 has made numerous edits to the Big Brother 16 (U.S.) Page, putting up a chart that no one agrees upon on the talk page for BB16. Its been noted in the edit summary numerous times to see the Talk page, which they ignore.Please help --Tech-Chef (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Not a matter requiring admin intervention at this moment, until an edit war breaks out. A few pointers.
  • Tech-chef, NOT VANDALISM. Don't abuse the word.
  • Consensus on the talk page is claimed for the current (?) table, but it's hard to gauge because no one thought it worthwhile to include a diff pointing at the table they thought was best, and so I can't figure out who's supporting what in the various sections. Best to get a clear consensus with clear diffs pointing at the relevant version.
  • I'm glad humanity is spending so much time making sure that a little TV show about people with no life locked in a house who are being watched by a bunch of voyeurs who then draw up colorful tables: that's progress.
  • The article as a whole is a bloated bag of trivia, albeit that some of it is in nice, colorful tables. What "Have-nots" and "Voting history" is, I can't tell, but I'm not a fan. But seriously, get iron-clad consensus. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • As a clarifying note: Have-nots in the Big Brother show are the people who sleep in a freezing cold room and eat basically mush on any given week. They get there because the Big Brother people think they didn't do much work the previous week. I'd say voting history is probably history on who got voted out? Not a huge fan of the show, myself, but I've watched it with my cousin enough and felt a strange need to clarify those points for some reason. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I put an "Overly Detailed" template on the article. Most of that stuff belongs in Wikia. The Wikia article for Big Brother 16 has less detail than the Wikipedia article.[176] Maybe the edit war can be exported to Wikia. John Nagle (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Mild edit warring continues over the background colors of table cells.[177]. Probably not worth admin attention. John Nagle (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Proxy?

I often use a proxy when browsing the web, but usually turn it off when editing Wikipedia because I've been unable to convince anyone to give me an IP Block Exemption (mostly my own fault, only time I tried I did it in the wrong forum). Anyhow, I forgot to turn off my VPN today and noticed that I could still edit. I thought I'd go ahead and report the IP address that I'm editing from in case anyone wants to block it like the rest of the others that are provided by this service provider are. 193.138.219.229 Zell Faze (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Oh dear oh dear oh dear

Hi Can we pull talk page access abusing talk page while blocked as per [178] and several after this. Amortias (T)(C) 23:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Has been done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Isn't there a known vandal with an obsession with Maria Sharapova? Yngvadottir (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There was and the abuse is identical to some I rolled back the other day, I asked for their talk page to be revoked here as well I'll track down the link but the quacking is strong with this one.Amortias (T)(C) 23:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If memory (and trawling the archives) serves me correctly looks like another User:Evlekis sock, talk page was deleted last time the comments dont bother me but might be worth it just so they dont sit around taking up server space. Amortias (T)(C) 23:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Worth noting that deleted pages still take up server space because nothing is ever actually deleted in Mediawiki. Additionally the WMF has so much server space that it shouldn't be used as a criteria. Still the other arguments are valid. Zell Faze (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Me gonna kick yo butt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another sockpuppet of the same vandal. Peter James (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

User Baoshr

Baoshr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is likely the currently active member of a cluster of Nepal-related socks, as alleged at this open SPI case (which is waiting for a Checkuser). Additionally, nearly everything they touch requires someone to clean up after them.

They've removed large amounts of text from a page here, often add level 1 headers instead of level 2s (right on this page [179]), sometimes in the middle of a talk page instead of at the end, refuse to spell-check and other English competence issues ([180], [181]), created a template to post a one-liner to a talk page ([182]), etc. (The other socks have more instances of the same behavior).

More importantly, they simply don't get the concept of WP:NOT#OR, despite repeated attempts to clue them in on their and other users' and article talk pages. It's particularly important in their case because they seem to focus on race/caste/lineage issues. I thought they were just having a problem related to their English skills, but this latest bit makes it clear that they just don't accept our sourcing requirements. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)