Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825

Continued deletion of complaints about biased editing abuses

I strongly object to the removal of my complaints about abusive biased editing practices which I placed on the talk page of the article that the editor in question edits abusively most frequently, to serve as a warning to other editors and, I hoped, to request administrator action against the abuses: [1], [2], [3]. I ask that User:Cadiomals's attempt to censor my complaints and warnings be reverted, and that User:VictorD7 be appropriately sanctioned for the clear abuses documented in the section which Cadiomals thinks is okay to delete.

I would also like some guidance about how to report such abuses in the future, please. EllenCT (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

See? Was it so hard posting your grievances here rather than on the Talk page of an article, where it is inappropriate and irrelevant? The first and foremost rule from WP:TALK is that article Talk pages exist for the sole purpose of discussing direct changes/improvements to the articles. Kudos for finding your way. Cadiomals (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Use user talk pages and, in extreme cases, noticeboards next time. Dark Sun (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Overall, what I'm seeing from EllenCT looks far more like tattletaling in order to 'win' a dispute than a sincere and well-founded attempt to help an editor with their behaviour. I'm not 100% sure that the removed section strictly matches the rather narrow criteria by which one can remove talk-page comments, and WP:Hatting the section might have been a better choice, but it's at best borderline and Cadiomals' action seems to have been a good-faith attempt to stop a dispute or at least point it to a more appropriate venue. No action against Cadiomals is warranted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ellen failed to even try to make a rational argument that I should be "sanctioned". Her low quality, POV pushing edits have been reverted by several different editors across multiple articles, not just me (e.g. [4],[5], [6]). In this example: [7], [8] she was reverted after trying to covertly slip in highly contentious economic/taxation material already under discussion (and ultimately rejected by strong consensus) with a totally misleading edit summary that pretended she was simply undoing some small, recent change to a different section. It's difficult to maintain assumptions of good faith under such conditions. Editors have been extremely patient with her for a long time, but she's been a persistently disruptive influence on multiple articles and Talk Pages, and perhaps it's time to examine whether she should be sanctioned. VictorD7 (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Sounds like we're in Australia again... Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

While commenting on this probably won't help relations in our current discussions, I do feel Ellen has a WP:TEDIOUS editing style and I'd welcome any review or intervention that might help us become more productive. Morphh ^(talk) 20:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Though I will certainly not vouch for much of VictorD7's past behavior, EllenCT is being hypocritical plain and simple for reporting Victor's "biased editing abuses" when she also has quite the history of her own "biased editing abuses". I'm less familiar with her activity on other articles, but in United States she has a history of either childish attempts at circumventing discussion or being a general drag on the discussion and consensus-building process (though Victor too has a history of being confrontational and disagreeable). I think Ellen is misguided in how United States is supposed to look based on WP:SUMMARY, and often has a hard time letting things go even when consensus has repeatedly shown itself to be against her. At least she has stopped trying to insert content into the article without first consulting Talk, but she continues to be a general drag in progress there by continuing her advocacy of irrelevant content, and the recent off-topic dispute crossed the line to merit removal.

I don't think much more can reasonably be done except telling both of them to cool it. To prevent drawn out back-and-forth, instead of directly addressing one another, they should only seek opinions and consensus from others from now on. Otherwise, Ellen's post to this noticeboard was just a failed attempt at trying to make herself look like a victim. Cadiomals (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course I reject any attempt to equate me with Ellen (how about the other people debating her, including yourself?), especially one based on no evidence. A baseless "pox on both their houses" attitude is intellectually lazy at best. All my edits and posts have been in good faith, and I've always been willing to rationally and civilly discuss any of them. VictorD7 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

VictorD7 is trying to include his political opinions by relying on non-peer reviewed sources, while the sources he complains about my inserting in opposition are peer reviewed and secondary. He has also been following my contributions to other articles, harassing me in an attempt to try to make that work out somehow. I have only asked that VictorD7 be encouraged to edit without conflicts, while he has asked that I be "banned from Wikipedia". I ask that VictorD7 be instructed to either edit based on peer reviewed sources or stop editing on the topics where we disagree. EllenCT (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

False on all counts. I've repeatedly bent over backwards to make good faith efforts to engage you on the issues where we've disagreed, and I'm not the one who ran to report you to admin (and falsely at that). VictorD7 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Having commented on the substantive issue at Talk:Taxation_in_the_United_States#Fourth_opinion, I would suggest that you two cool it a bit and refrain from the personal insults for a while. Also avoid trading long biting exchanges on the talkpage if you can. Maybe take it to talk to clarify the confusion or even have a phone conversation. You both seem to be capable of making rational contributions to the encyclopedia. I'll admit I lean left (and believe that reality has a left-wing bias), so I'm favorably inclined towards Ellen's position (and have seen quite a bit of good work from her) and naturally a bit suspicious of self-described conservatives. I suppose that goes both ways but the bottom line is that the US taxes as a whole are not really very progressive (due largely to the payroll taxes exemption starting around 100k and the 15% long-term capital gains / qualified dividends rate) and it is difficult to paint the picture otherwise, although this seems like a valiant attempt. II | (t - c) 07:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the point of the political commentary here is, but I'll note that in the section he linked to I and another editor politely corrected II's mistakes, and today he politely conceded "looks like I was wrong". That's the way discussions among editors are supposed to unfold. It's when Ellen gets involved that all too often rationality and civility go out the window. VictorD7 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with this characterization. I was wrong about some federal tax numbers, but I think there is still a legitimate argument to be made about corporate tax incidence assumptions, which are highly debatable per e.g. Corporate Tax Incidence and Its Implications for Progressivity (2009) and How TPC Distributes The Corporate Income Tax (2012). It's not clear to me that either of you are really engaging that well on this point exactly either; seems to have just descended into insults. In addition, I lean towards agreeing with Ellen on the omission of the effects of state and local taxes as it seems somewhat arbitrary (and hence potentially politically-motivated) although I understand that there may be data limitations. As far as your political self-identification, it's a reasonable heuristic. Nobody should be using Wikipedia as a political platform but in my seven years floating around here I've seen more conservatives run afoul of that then the other way around. By definition, a heuristic is not perfect, but if you associate yourself with a group where the majority don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, evolution, etc then you should expect to receive additional scrutiny. The economics wikiproject is probably overrepresented with libertarians and it's a bit of a problem. Also, keep in mind that we don't always do things based on majorities around here. It's !votes, not votes. If a majority of people !vote to change evolution so it says it's just a theory and the world is 13,000 years sold similar to Conservapedia, the one person dissenting (and hopefully reverting) is in the right. II | (t - c) 00:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

All I did was quote your edit summary to illustrate the reasonable give and take found in healthy editor discussions. I don't recall Ellen ever saying something like that, no matter undeniably wrong she's proved to be on a particular point. She keeps essentially insisting that 2+2=5 (or sometimes "green"). While I disagree with much of what you say (especially your 180 degree wrong liberal/conservative run afoul claim) and would love to debate you on various political issues, this page is hardly the proper place. VictorD7 (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

VictorD7 says that it is "false" that he has been trying to push his political point of view using cherry picked non-peer reviewed sources against my attempts to prevent him from doing so using peer reviewed secondary sources. If he wishes to substantiate that claim, he has had ample opportunity to try to find a single peer-reviewed source which agrees with the several non-peer reviewed sources he has found. Again, VictorD7 should be instructed to use peer reviewed sources or refrain from editing when he can't find any which agree with him, please. And Cadiomals should be instructed to treat those who are trying to encourage other editors to rely on accurate sources instead of pushing their POV with inaccurate sources with respect, please. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As usual, you provide no evidence. You're a serial partisan soapboxer who's annoyed even some editors who share your politics, and, far from cherry-picking, I and other editors used all available sources, including the ones you posted, to systematically debunk all your claims.VictorD7 (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Further harassment by VictorD7

VictorD7 continues to follow my contributions, harassing me with reverts without even discussing them on the talk page. Can anything be done about this? EllenCT (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually I followed Morphh there because I had asked him a question on another page and was checking to see if he was active. And I explained my revert of your massive, undiscussed, POV stuffing change. Mutiple editors have reverted it, so please discuss it before trying to make it again. Also, please stop harassing me with false accusations and wasting admin's time. I was editing at the United States page long before you showed up, and our paths have crossed on some other articles since then because we apparently have an overlapping interest in tax/fiscal matters. I couldn't care less about whatever unrelated articles you post on. VictorD7 (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe you. You started following me and reverting without discussion long before my most recent interactions with Morphh. The evidence is in the diffs shown as deleted in the diffs from my first post to the parent section. You only had a few edits to articles other than United States before then. EllenCT (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I had been on Wikipedia less than a year before you showed up at the US article, and my first interactions with Morphh were on my user page after I edited Taxation in the United States (none of which involved you). I've been looking up various related articles lately, but I don't think I had ever been on the TP and EI page until several hours ago, after following him and finding you (big shock) rewriting a massive chunk of the article at once without discussion and making a mockery of NPOV. Frankly I've demonstrated a great deal more knowledge than you have on these topics and I have at least as much right to be on those pages as you do. I've also always been willing to discuss edits and reverts, and have done so, as I just linked. VictorD7 (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You only just found your first peer reviewed source, you had to go back to 1962 to find it, and it's nowhere near secondary. Essentially all your edits before I came along were POV pushing on United States. If you can find the secondary literature, I will consider upgrading the esteem, but I would need to see a clear willingness to undo your past inaccuracies. Are you ready to make that kind of a commitment? EllenCT (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I've quoted from numerous peer reviewed sources, including your own source that you misread that described the 1962 paper as "seminal" and explained how it's shaped scholarship since, I quoted all that stuff a long time ago (along with similar material from the CBO and even your own ITEP source that started this whole debate), you have yet to find a single source (peer review or not) supporting any of your claims, the "peer review" tangent is irrelevant anyway since your assumptions about your ITEP chart's (which isn't any more peer reviewed than the sources contradicting its figures) methodology were refuted by quotes and numbers from its own site, I had branched out to other articles before you came along and will continue to do so, and all of my edits have been quality and in good faith while you've got numerous editors admonishing you for serial POV pushing and tendentious behavior. At one point you even claimed labor and consumption were the same thing, causing astonished editors to patiently try to explain the difference to you. Do you still believe that? It's hard to tell since you never seem to acknowledge facts posted by others or admit you're wrong when proved incorrect. That's especially problematic since you're demonstrably wrong a great deal of the time. VictorD7 (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Further harassment by Morphh

Now User:Morphh, who VictorD7 recently convinced that the Tax Policy Center web site was peer reviewed, culls graphical information to try to hide the truth: one summary argument for how many graphs? Complete disregard for WP:BRD in a pathetic attempt to avoid facing the fact that he's been misled by the likes of VictorD7. Sad, but not a lost cause. I ask that Morphh be instructed to abide by WP:BRD. EllenCT (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In support of Morphh, I have also noted and reverted EllenCT's continued use of misleading graphs, even after she has participated in long discussions, and RFCs that have found the same material lacking. For instance, her insertion of this graph [9] was done weeks after long discussions on the Progressive tax talk page, including this RFC Talk:Progressive_tax#RFC_on_graph_linking_top_marginal_tax_rates_to_job_growth in which the vast majority of editors found the graph misleading and WP:SYN.Mattnad (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ellen is also seriously warping both my and Morphh's views, not that this content discussion is pertinent to this page. I'm pretty sure neither of us has ever claimed the "web site" is peer reviewed. I'm not even sure what that would mean. VictorD7 (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ellen, it is courtesy for you to notify someone if you lodge a complaint against them on ANI. I just happen to be watching this page and noticed the accusation. Again, another personal attack. The summary you linked to includes two discussion threads which cover all three graphs. So the discussion is already taking place and in some cases concluded. Admittedly, not the best summary, but you're fully aware of the debates regarding all three graphs. They were removed on the main articles where they were discussed and I thought it appropriate to remove them, at least temporarily until a consensus determines inclusion, for all the various articles that were unaware of the contention. If these were specific articles about the graph topic, then I would say let's teach the controversy and include the proper balance, explain the criticism, but many of these are higher level articles or ones that have little relevance to the graph's content. Morphh ^(talk) 16:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure how I'm the one harassing Ellen. She followed all my edits and reverted them, not the other way around. I then reverted with a link to the discussion (requested in her summary), which was already taking place (and had taken place on several articles). She then reverted again. And to Victor's point, I never said the TPC website was peer reviewed. In fact, I said the opposite regarding institute websites and pointed to peer reviewed methodologies. I don't say this as a point to start a discussion, but as defense to the original charge. Morphh ^(talk) 18:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it ok to call other editors a "rat", as long as it is done in Hebrew?

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.

---

Gilabrand (talk · contribs) and I edit in the same area (Israel/Palestine), and we have not always agreed on matters, to put it diplomatically. Latest about a month ago, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive142#Gilabrand.

However, Gilabrand has always called me by my correct nick, Huldra, earlier. (See e.g. this )

This last month they have suddenly started calling me "Hulda" (like here, and here)

Which, apparently means "Rat" in Hebrew. Comments? Huldra (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, Hulda can refer to a number of things, including an opera, but I would caution Gilabrand to avoid Mickey Mouse games with an editor's name. It's not very collegial. Jonathunder (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This is childish, and Gilabrand should be warned that such behavior is unbecoming of Wikipedia editors. Hopefully that will put an end to it. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he doesn't need to be calling any editors by any names other than their User Names, so this is not okay, no matter the meaning or language. Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the first time that Gilabrand has engaged in playing juvenilishly with user names to wind other editors up: in the past she has used her own signature to try to get at Nableezy much as NoCal100 used his username to wind up another editor. Examples of Gilabrand's signature altered to read 'Nopleazy': 1, 2, 3, 4. Instances of me asking Gilabrand to desist: 1, 2, 3. Examples where Gilabrand altered her signature to read 'Yespleazy' instead: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
As mentioned in the recent AE case concerning Gilabrand, she was the subject of an indefinite ban in the Arab-Israeli topic area, which was eventually lifted with the warning that Gilabrand is further reminded that any future problematic editing following the removal of editing restrictions will viewed dimly. The recent AE case was closed with no action taken except another warning: "Gilabrand has been notified, warned of the heightened scrutiny and limits to how far things can go before they would become actionable, and encouraged to edit in a somewhat more neutral manner if possible" (see also Gilabrand's talkpage: "Gilabrand will be notified that their edits are under heightened scrutiny due to their personal opinions and editing trends on these topics, and that moderation and neutrality will be helpful to avoid further investigations as to whether their edits are becoming single purpose, soapboxing, or battleground type edits and subject to the Arbcom sanctions.")
Given that Gilabrand has had several strong warnings about her behaviour, one given very recently, perhaps this incident deserves to be taken a bit more seriously.
    ←   ZScarpia   18:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is unbelievably ridiculous. I have nothing against Huldra - we have worked on many articles together to fill in the history of villages about which little is know. "Hulda" is simply a typo. But now that she mentions it, it is actually complimentary. Hulda is the name of a Biblical prophetess. --Geewhiz (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Not true. Here is a couple of Gilabrands posts about me from just this year: "By the way, I am keeping a log of your aggressive comments to me, which is growing quite long. Another one was added today on Hittin", and "clean up but leave Huldra's threat for posterity". Please also read my entry in the last AE: it was after that that Gilabrand suddenly started "misstyping". Coincident? Huldra (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

So you suddenly start repeatedly making the same typo in the name of a user you have been acquainted with for some time. Are there any other cases where you have done the same?     ←   ZScarpia   19:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more careful in the future to avoid creating even the appearance of an insult (though none may be intended)? If so, we are done here. Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I will try to type more slowly... Funny how stuff can be misinterpreted.--Geewhiz (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Funny, isn't it? For example, your response when she asked you about it on your talk page: "My wife and kids had a good laugh over your detective skills. Maybe they will accept you to the FBI." That might be misinterpreted as sarcasm. Typing slowly might not be a bad idea if it helps you think about how things will be read. Jonathunder (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we get an agreement from both of you to only refer to the other by correct username and only with respect (even if you don't like each other)? If so, I hope we can close this. Jonathunder (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In view of this being a repeated pattern (compare the Nableezy-refs above), please do not close this yet. As noted: Gilabrand has posted untrue statements, IMO. And was 'Nopleazy' also a typo? And how many "warnings" does an editor receive before it has any consequences? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Gilabrand makes here above as if she would be sorry for what she did but her initial answer on her talk page proves she is not sorry at all, at the contrary: [10]

This behaviour is in total disagreement with WP:NPA and the 4st pillar of wikipedia. In more of that, there is no content dispute between Huldra and Gilanbrand. This would show that Gilabrand acted because of other reasons (my mind: because Huldra is an Arab and Gilabrand an Israeli). That is not acceptable per WP:BATTLEGROUND. Gilabrand's should be blocked at least 1 week for this and she should receive a warning that she would be blocked indefinetely if she does this again.

Pluto2012 (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you realise that you make typos too? For example you misspelled "Gilabrand" as "Gilanbrand".--Toddy1 (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Pluto2012 should be blocked at least 1 week for calling Gilabrand "Gilanbrand", which means "Pig" in the Klingon language. Marokwitz (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• In answer to your question, no it isn't, because that is a personal attack pbp 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Question - how many times in the November-December timeframe did Gilabrand type your account name in a comment or response? I see the two misspelled examples above, how many were there total and how many of those were misspelled? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • To Georgewilliamherbert: AFAIK: she has only addressed me those two times this last month, misspelling my name each time. While she earlier always have spelled it correctly, (like here, back in 2008). Notice that her "misspelling" comes just after I have written very critically about her in the above mentioned AE. Compare it also to her spelling of Nableezy; another editor who she has disagreed with, Huldra (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

"The Prophetess Hulda: Her Message of Hope": [11] Perhaps it was meant as a compliment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.25.54 (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not know if she is sorry or not. We cannot mandate that. An agreement to call each other by proper names is all we can ask.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I copy and paste names instead of typing them. This reduces the chance of the kind of error that Gilabrand/Geewhiz made about Huldra - but, if the typographic error occurs once, it means that it has the potential to be repeated many times. Maybe that is what happened here.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Without telepathy we are not going to get an actual final answer here. The history of name games (3 years ago, but extensive) and repeat of the "typo" make intentional attack credible, but I have typoed enough things to know accident is possible.

My current opinion - Gilabrand, when I closed the AE I made heightened scrutiny clear to you. That does not mean an end to AGF or understanding sbout innocent mistakes, but it puts a hard and firm limit on the number of question marks we can accept going forwards.

This incident, given the repeat and meaning as misspelled and blowing off rather than apologizing when called on it, is a serious question mark. One strike for that.

You don't have 'three strikes and you're out". I don't want to set up a legalistic limit or let you game this. This counts. I won't act based on this one, but AGF goes away. This kind of thing happens again and you don't apologize and strike or retract, will be bad.

Heightened scrutiny does not mean zero tolerance for error, but it does approach zero tolerance for screwing around. Your response here was about all the slack you are going to get from me. If you goof again, make it right, and be a lot more careful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hulda is a kibbutz in central Israel, and the name of a Jewish prophet, certainly not a pejorative. I'm shocked. This bogus ANI complaint is so childish and far fetched, it is almost sad. The Administrators' noticeboard should not be used for such clear and obvious harassment. Marokwitz (talk) 07:39, 5 January 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:Lgcsmasamiya

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:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Lgcsmasamiya's patrolling, user:Lgcsmasamiya was banned from patrolling the new pages feed. Well a look at [[12]] shows that he is still doing so. I cannot see how he is doing it properly at that speed. Is he still banned? Can anything be done? Op47 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Lgcsmasamiya was banned from page patrolling, and it looks like he is still doing it haphazardly. As someone who has had to clean up some of his messes, I think it's time to prevent him from further violating the ban.- MrX 18:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

ETA: It looks like he is not adding any cleanup tags to any of these articles. I'm going through them now to make sure there are not any copyvios or WP:BLP vios.- MrX 18:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Lgcsmasamiya blocked until they can demonstrate an understanding of, and a willingness to comply with, the guidelines and conventions involved with new page patrol. Tiderolls 19:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• This ban is not listed at WP:EDR yet. Should the topic ban on Lgcsmasamiya be put up there? Epicgenius (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. I have added it. - MrX 7:12 pm, Today (UTC−5)

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.

ChrisGualtieri again...(how many times has it been?)

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.

---

Since my last block, I've been extra careful not trying to make any more issues with another editor. Yet he still bombards me with personal attacks and incivility shown here (and keep in mind to be looking at my answer to see how obscure his responces are):

• asking irrelevant provoking
• complete dismissal of others opinions
• attempting to discredit, and again, trying to bring topics irrelevant to the matter
• personal attacks
• personal attacks
• personal attacks
• personal attacks

In fact, i had to forgive this editor, just so i can edit in peace, and this editor not hold any more of the "this editor hates me" crud or any other irrelevant matter that he likes to promote. And even after the showing of peace, this editor continues to make things personal between me and him and i'm simply tired of it.

• harrassment
• false accusations
• false accusations
• making things personal rather quick
  • another editor noting his faulty accusations.

And again, it doesn't end. This editor makes it so that he can't read my comments, and yet, chooses to target articles I've been involved in such as the reverting of Phantasy Star Adventure, Phantasy Star Gaiden, and Phantasy Star II Text Adventures. Intentionally ignoring every relevant comment needed to get the conversation going for these related articles. Its like an interaction ban, but instead, its affecting the progress of editing articles.

I've attempted to make peace and this editor continues to take everything personally and make the first attack. I know i brought him up in the past, but so have others and he manages not getting any action due to "repenting" right at the last second. i'm doing my best not to even provoke this editor, and yet he continues to make incivil remarks.Lucia Black (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

These difs are extremely weak examples. I don't see anything actionable here, all you're proving is that you two are still completely incapable of interacting with one another. I can't help but think your respective WikiProjects and AN/ANI are both very tired of your bickering, but that's a two way street. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless you can find where i'm provoking him, or being directly uncivil, most of this is still his attempts at attacking on his part. And they add up quickly. thats the thing. most of those are from the same conversation, and you can see in my comments that i'm not trying to fight, and yet he continues to do so.

This constant back and forth should end. And I've already paid mine, and i'm making it so i don't come back here again with WP:BOOMERANG. yes the wikiproject and ANI are tired of this. But why not just do what needed to be done in the first place? Issues of him and his incivility still continued even when i wasn't involved. He manages to get saved by repenting, and apologizing, but in the end he continues to do so.

i don't find these weak because he makes it easy to make any situation escalate. and its still related to previous ANI of behavior (and even back then, it was closer to making action). the issue is more out of "response" to neutral comments. I'm doing my best to give him a neutral, and non-personal comment, and he continues to poison things. He calls it spitting in his eye, over something that simply isn't related to him personally. And continues to make accusations and poisoning discussions.

He's been saved before, i gave him peace offering, and he still treats things as its a personal agenda against him. And this should be proof enough that his previous apologies that he made in the past don't mean anything. And whenever he does this, he is the one disrupting the discussion, not me. But worst of all, is when he attempts to hide my comments so he doesn't read them, and yet chooses to get involved in a more debatable issue that i'm involved in. So its more incivility.

Me? i can work well with him, i'm monitoring my own comments so a topic/bully-one-way-interaction ban happens again. But, if he chooses to not lit up over every discussion. If i could bring up an entire case of history with him, i would, but this is what i have, and it should be enough. a lot of attacks being thrown. Incivility is clearly there, and there is alot of it even if you think its "weak"Lucia Black (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think either of your are really being incivil, it's just the endless arguing between you two that is a problem. Most of those "personal attacks" are just him not agreeing with you, or saying you're wrong, which, true or false, I don't know, but they hardly constitute as an "attack". The only action I'd see as remotely plausible would be an interaction ban between you two, but I don't want to be pulled into this bickering any further, so I won't driving that effort.

I'll let others voice their opinion, but I can't see this going anywhere if those are the difs you're working with... Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

the personal attacks are constantly making it seem like i know nothing of the subject. and this goes on constantly. If such an interaction ban were to occur, this time i would prefer a two-way interaction.Lucia Black (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• This problem is all Lucia's doing I don't think I should be penalized for her abusive behavior that extends to nearly every editor she's ever interacted with. I doubt anyone will read this whole response because it contains so much evidence, but Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucia Black/Link Bank is indicative of the editor's attitude. She's backing it up on Wikipedia and "another site", because she has no "word pad or memo" on her phone and "... if you don't give me trouble for a long period of time, i do end up deleting the info. but not truly deleted."[13] She made the ANI to justify her userpage that was previously cited as a violation of WP:POLEMIC at her talk. Which her response was to try and make friends, and saidforgive and forget. Than started it again with a perceived slight from Sergecross[14] Though all these issues that are "so bad" are actually based on Lucia's WP:RANDY behavior that infuriated and irritate me to no end, with a deliberate intention to harass and undermine and constantly abuse me. These actions got her the topic ban and interaction ban prior. She broke her interaction and topic ban no less than five times and got blocked for it. I find it inexcusable that an editor will present false issues and announced the intention to fail a GA and altered a previous comment I had already responded to.[15] Lucia misrepresented official sources as "fanbooks" and other issues in the GAN. @Huon: got involved in it and has tried to help, but I walked away from Lucia in that GAN and she keeps finding new ways to start a fight. After Sven's RFC she started another discussion including yet another attempt to override a merge RFC that was closed only a month ago by Armbrust that had a clear consensus to not merge the article. Which @Catalan: also mentioned was WP:GAMING since no one wants to split up a GA. Lucia made the discussion out of the blue because "I boldly split things" and wanted to get consensus to split or not to split One Piece and Naruto, something which no one wants to split. It is a hypothetical "what-if" that goes against the community RFC that Sven made stating it would be on a "case by case" basis and Lucia needs to "test that consensus". She argues with the other Ghibli editor with drama like "you're just picking fights now. one more word of it, and i will delete the ENTIRE thread." Her constant WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, bad faith accusations, edit warring and general lack of knowledge of the topic area makes it all the more irritating. I mentioned that this is a WP:RANDY situation, I am a scholar in the anime and manga field, but I simply have no patience for an editor who inserts blatantly false material, misrepresents sources and will purposely try to "destabilize" a GAN to feed their need for attention. Lucia Black does more arguing and fighting than actual work and I've said it repeatedly, that I don't have the time to waste on this. I don't think anyone else should either; it's just noise. If anyone needs me, I'll be tending to my GANs until the next time Lucia decides to overturn consensus - a pattern which has been repeated since her first topic ban and interaction ban. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Chris meant me when he referred to a user "Catalan" in the above comment. Calathan (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris, theres a whole mess you are hiding. like the fact that you also played in a part in stalling discussions due to this RfC, now that it didn't go in your favor, you're trying to make it seem like its not relevant. other editors there had no complaints and again, was clarified that its not gaming the system. afterall the RfC was both yours and ryulong's idea and it was indeed the outcome of articles such as bleach and Dragon ball. Huon even recaps to say that the discussion was indeed halted for the sake of the RfC.

ALso, if you noticed, none of my coments toward you are in any way "incivil" but you choose to continue and claiming "battleground" behavior. Even knowledgekid also acknowledges that there was not, and that you are the one throwing the first "jabs"Lucia Black (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You guys both should realize that they massive blocks of text are probably part of the reason why your issues never get resolved. Why should "volunteer" editors spend their time wading through all of that mass of text? There's no way there is going to be a consensus forming when there's so much info being jumbled together. Which is fine this time, I guess, since I don't believe any action is required, but still, going forward, you both should keep this in mind... Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Chris. stop derailing discussions. the oens you jsut sourced shows how much you derail things, and choose to become incivil.Lucia Black (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Er, I was referring to both of you, really... Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

like i said, i can work with this editor, if he chooses to be civil, and compliant. And he makes a fuss, takes things personally, and chooses to escalate a situation and derail it. if you have any evidence of me doing that after my ban. by all means provide it, but i've been doing from what i believe is my my all to avoid causing any more trouble, and yet, it follows me.Lucia Black (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear Option: There are 2 options and 2 options only. The first is to let this perpetual Ryulong-ChrisGualtieri-Lucia Black drama-pot keep simmering and boiling over (thereby granting an ice pick lobotomy to the entire community) or to finally deal with this drama magnet once and for all. If it's not obvious, I advocate for some very heavy handed sanctions to be placed on all 3 users as they can't interact positively with each other or within the same topic space. Recalling, of course, the last time that Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri disputed to ANI they were withing milimeters of topic and interaction bans.Hasteur (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't drag me into this bullshit Hasteur. Chris and Lucia's dispute with each other predates my (resolved) dispute with Chris.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Mind not changing other editor's talk page statements M'kay? And you were already dragged in from the statement by Lucia Black at 16:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC), you were just never notified about it. Hasteur (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't want any part of it and I've done nothing except remove the link. I've no dog in this fight.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem is that the ANI's are more consistent with Chris alone more than with Ryulong and I individually. he managed to save himself several times, and its simmers because action should've taken place along time ago. THere is alot more that this editor gets away with, and part of it has to do with thinking he knows best even when a bold edit is reverted, and then only uses BRD rule when its convenient. but if you take action now, i would be serving a second ban when I've already cleaned up most of my act. Ryulong, although made "peace" with ChrisGualtieri, both mutually avoid each other for a time. But i don't have that luxury. every edit i make is considered an attack to this editor, and i'm not the only editor in the wikiproject to think so. And the links provided shows that the majority he's the one picking the fights. and even then you can see in those edits i'm trying to keep it civil.Lucia Black (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Questionable motivation

Was the only reason this was brought up because of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucia Black/Link Bank this? Yesterday, an editor nominated her subpage (which hosts all her difs about Chris) for deletion due to it being WP:POLEMIC, and not using the links in a timely manner. The next day, she brings this weak case to ANI? I feel like this discussion was only brought up to justify that page's existence and avoid it being deleted. Its an awfully big coincidence at least... Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

you could make arguments about that. but since i already found a site to help me keep track and be able to save them, its of little concern to me whether it gets deleted. The key was to save the recorded incivility in a place where i can keep track. and i did confirm that i was going to use the information quite recently, and that's regardless of the outcome. I've restored the information pretty recently, and that should be taken a sign of me taking action, and Huon just happens to pick up on it the moment i restored it and decides to MfD (and seems to only act when it invovles ChrisGualtieri). So as you can see, it's not that the ANI notice came at a convenient time to protect the Miscellaneous page, its more that when i'm making advances to put it to use, Huon decides to put it up for MfD. and even so, i find it a tad ridiculous to bring these "recent" issues up for the sake of protecting one page.

My issues for ChrisGualtieri are real, and many other editors hae noted it in the past.Lucia Black (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

And this is why your restrictions should've been indefinite. Although Chris may be causing a problem, Lucia, you are the one creating a page that violates WP:POLEMIC and WP:POINT and is now going back to the same problem behavior of ranting at ANI's door about Chris. Seriously, Lucia cut the crap unless you want to have an indefinite block. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 17:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I request Lucia request speedy delete (post {{db-u1}} on the page). NE Ent 17:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

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

---

I am formally proposing based on the diffs above, her constant frivolous AN & AN/I reports, and other WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviors that Lucia Black is indefinitely blocked until she demonstrates that this behavior will not continue.

• Support -- as nom. Enough is enough. ChrisGualtieri doesn't deserve this and neither does anyone else. The fact that she got away with a single 48 hour block when she breached her restrictions daily astonishes me and she is exhausting patience with these games. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 18:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@Sportsguy17: If you're starting your conversation with "this is why your restrictions should've been indefinite" and admitting Chris is at fault too, then by no means are you having a fair opinion here. You're still admitting that Chris is causing trouble and you're trying to make something not as clear, look like it broke the biggest rule of them all. and quite frankly, thats what bothers me about ANI. that they admit theres an issue, and choose to not act on it for another, and intentionally over-exaggerate. and i will inform you on why its exaggeration at least for this instance:

WP:POLEMIC allows such a page to exist in the chance of it being used in a timely manner, and again i had a system set up so that it would be "timely" or set up to be timely to ones eye (again no number is put and so you can't make this out as a clear violation). if the issues died down, then i would remove them from the list, but if the editor then chooses to continue some time soon, it comes back along with the new incidents that made it come back (obviously, i'm not going to bring up an issue that happened 5 years ago if the same issue comes again. it wouldn't be "timely). The system is simple, can be considered to be used in a timely manner, and one can say "not violating any policies". And i say that because there's no distinction on what can be defined "timely". If the information dies down, i don't use it. simple as that.

if you don't agree, and consensus believe its not timely. then it can be closed. no big deal. banning me "indefinitely" for a policy that makes no clear distinctions and can easily be misinterpret? You have your thoughts set out for restrictions to be "indefinite" from the start and from before, so its not like you're looking for a good reason. you're just looking for a reason in general. Be realistic here, and take the situation for what it is. The Policy makes no clear distinction. but even so, i did my best to keep it timely, and you can't block me indefinitely for even trying. that would just be pretty messed up thing to do.

And no, this isn't WP:POINT. like i said, the use was going to be quite recently, but Huon MfD the page on the same day that i restored information that i intended to use regardless of the MfD within this time frame, so now it looks like i'm making a pointy-edit to keep the link bank (despite making it clear i found a site that allows me to save the information without the hassle of interpreting "timely") rather than this being already taken a course of action and Huon decides to intervene.

Also, i'm not going to dicuss this any further. you want me to nominate it for speedily deleting it, i will. but don't you dare try to make this to cover up what the purpose of all this, and this is to prove someone is being problematic. @Sergecross73: another editor, besides having an agenda of indefinite block over trivial things, just admitted another editor is being troublesome. So you really have to grasp the truths that are being said. if one editor believes he's being troublesome, then why not consider what i provided in a more serious matter.Lucia Black (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment if you also don't believe Chris "doesn't deserve this". lets keep in mind, Chris has also barely and i mean "BARELY" manage to salvage himself from action, several times by choosing to apologize when consensus is against him. here i'm providing information that even after a formal peace offering, the editor does not learn from it. He continues to hassle, makes things personal, and disrupts other discussions.

Again you've had this agenda, for a pretty good while, and your comment shows that you initially wanted this indefinitely from the start.Lucia Black (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment I would suppose if you're going to block one for such behaviors, then you can block the other for the same. KonveyorBelt 19:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment Not exactly, i wasn't "barely" saved. unlike Chris here, who manages to get away by merely apologizing, and again this is right when consensus has already agreed to take action. and since my block, i haven't made any uncivil remarks to him, and i try to stay on point and neutral. but again, he continues to be aggressive, and doing the exact same things that cause issues in the first place. We also have to consider that he barely got saved last time merely for the reasons that he repented. But here, it shows that A) i brought a peace offering and B) he's the one throwing it all away. Not only that but this is unavoidable. its not like i'm going to his talk page and harassing him or even provoking him. no, look in the links, and you can see discussions i brought up are being poisoned by his own aggressive and false accusations. Basically since then, he hasn't changed at all, and now he's made it clear he has no patience for me, and will not be changing anytime soon. And again, this is all from receiving pretty general neutral, civil comments.Lucia Black (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Because you're far more disruptive Lucia. Your behavior has convinced me that you're WP:NOTHERE. Chris wants peace and the ability to edit without you breathing down his neck all the time. At least Chris tries to come up with a solution, you just constantly abuse him and several other editors. Lucia, you've been nothing but a nuisance for a while. We've tried to come up with other solutions. A topic/interaction ban didn't work, since you violated it almost every day and you were lucky to have only been blocked once. So, Konveyor Belt this proposal is for Lucia only. Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 19:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You're inconsistent Sportzilla, you admit to him being problematic, but then try to paint him off as a saint by simply making up such things. you can see clearly that i am not "breathing down his neck" when you read the links yourself, he is the one making every incivil remark and not only that but he is the one responding to me, or the discussion i began, and rather keeping it on the content, he chooses to talk about the editors. don't believe me? it's right there Sportzilla. Either CHris has helped you in the past and you want to make it look like he's done nothing wrong (even though you've admitted to it) or you're just trying to make simple things look worst. and i challenge you to prove what you're saying is true (that i'm breathing down his neck) by using links. i'm not the one looking for this, afterall i gave a peace offering. But quite recently, he's been looking for me. Heck he even harrassed me on my own talkpage. and if you don't believe me, look at the links.Lucia Black (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Lucia, have you thought how Chris feels? He is trying to understand how you feel. I was on IRC with him and he said he was miserable. Lucia, why do you care about Chris at all? His conversation with me on IRC suggests he wants to be away from you. Please leave him alone. He wants to build content, not fight with a nuisance like you who is wearing down patience rapidly. Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 19:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

WOw...so if someone just suddenly confides in you, then that means that they must be you're talking with the good guy. and anyone who is making this person feel miserable has to do with

And calling me a nuisance already, shows how one-sided this. There's two sides Sportzilla. if you want to stick with one side, so be it. but just because Chris confide with you in IRC, doesn't mean for a second that he's right in all this. The links says it all Sportzilla. did you actually look at them? He has done the opposite of avoid.

you're just bias Sportzilla, you're sympathizing over him for how he's feeling, not for whether he's right. and yes, maybe he has the right ideals, but everything so far has been against procedure. If you actually knew the stuff he isn't telling you.Lucia Black (talk) 19:48, 2 January 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.

Proposal 2

The most valuable asset Wikipedia has are mature editors who are able to contribute to the encyclopedia in a cooperative fashion. CG and LB (listed alphabetically) have demonstrated a chronic inability to do this. It is not the best use of other volunteer's time to mediate their interactions. I'm opposing any interaction bans because it is my believe that, rather than solve the problem, it would just be a matter of time before one is ratting out the other for some alleged violation. (They are much better at seeing the motes in the other eye than the beams in theirs.) If I thought I could get the votes, I'd propose site banning both of them right now. Seriously. Not kidding.
Instead I propose both be placed on community get along and figure it out probation. The next time either complains about, discusses, or mentions the other anywhere on on-wiki, regardless of provocation, any admin may indefinitely block them.NE Ent 19:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Support NE Ent 19:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

But look at where its heading. you simply want to control the situation by making you not hear a thing. That wont solve anything. and i know you're fustrated, but its not right to do it indefinitely. I've been blocked enough, and i taken extra care of my comments, but i'm not the one looking for chrisgualtieri. everything so far has just been thrown at me.Lucia Black (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Lucia, stop it. You are the one who has WP:BOOMERANGed this right back at yourself, by raising a frivolous ANI based on incredibly weak evidence, just to make a WP:POINT. I think everyone is sick to death of Lucia vs Chris. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment just make your vote, and don't start making snippy comments. WP:BOOMERANG over weak situation, is like catching the thief who stole a 100 dollar bill but wont act until its a 1000. HOw about you take a look at each one. the only way you canb ring a relevant WP:BOOMERANG is if i do the same thing Chris is doing. AKA being a hipocrit.Lucia Black (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Its a "boomerang" because you were the one who reported him, but sanctions are now being thrown at you. That's appropriate usage of the term. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You're admitting there is a bias perspective on who brings it up, not what the editor is doing. so theres a strong loophole here.Lucia Black (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

No, all I did was explain to you the concept of boomerang. I said nothing of "bias". Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Lucia, if you keep up this bullshit, then a WP:CIR (not NOTHERE, because I don't think that quite applies) indef block will be dropped on you. You will stop at nothing to attack Chris, or anyone who objects to your attacks. You need to change tack; instead of spending all of your energy on attacking one user, use it to improve your spelling, grammar and syntax, which are sorely lacking. At the very least, please proof-read your comments - doing this may also make you realize just how far out of line you are. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - As with what NE Ent said above, I don't think a ban would gather support yet, but I do think something very strict is necessary in order to stop this. All they do is clutter up every discussion avenue we have with endless arguing and bickering, and they do it in such as way (large rambling walls of texts) that its virtually impossible to follow along, let alone get any sort of third party input. They clearly can't handle themselves when it comes to calm discussion, so I feel like something like this proposal is necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Although NE Ent's proposal sounds reasonable, we have to consider the fact that Lucia is always the one that drags Chris by the ears to these drama boards and is the one breathing down Chris's neck. Also, see her rants above. The thing is, Lucia's disruption is all across English Wikipedia. As I said, she is WP:NOTHERE. Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 19:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• See this as an example of her causing disruption with someone besides Chris. Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't disagree, but this proposal may be more likely to garner support. Also, if Chris is as tired of dealing with Lucia as you say, then this shouldn't be much of an issue for him, he can happily not interact with her anymore in this proposal. Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If Chris was as tired as he was to interact with me, he would've simply avoided discussions that he felt were meaningless. On another note, the edits says it all, and you can see it by the links provided. What Chris claims (or what Sportzilla claims he claims) and what he says during a discussion doesn't compute.

That is only one link. agianst me, why not bring an entire ANI case regarding chris? you see, this can work both ways Sportzilla. I can show you what he's done, you can bring merely one link. which i guarantee you, thats all you're gonna find. But when it comes to me and Chris, i've been the civil one. and no one here can deny that. and if you dare try, i challenge you to bring links.Lucia Black (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"No one can deny that"? Are you reading the same discussion as everyone else? Not a single person has come to your defense. Everyone's denying that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Do i really need number of votes to prove the truth when i already have it in number of evidence (links). The only link you've provided isn't even Chris-related. But I've provided the truth. I've provided that Chris has been an issue. And Sportzilla despite efforts to be one sided openly admits in the beginning that Chris is indeed being problematic. Just imagine if he was nuetral on the subject. how much his opinion would weigh in?

And you know this Serge, look how far its been to not only deny the links, but the very thing they prove (Chris always making the first attack) you say the exact opposite and without proof. I've done my part after my ban. And i'm honestly sick of the harassment by Chris. and yes, if Chris claims he's miserable, than i'm miserable as he is. maybe even more, since he's the one throwing the punches this time. Who's the one coming into my talkpage and making outrageous claims? Who has to humor him for the sake of civility?

Can you deny that? can you deny that Chris hasn't been aggressive and combatant? or do i need to bring editors who i know will vouche for this? that would be considered inappropriate right?Lucia Black (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes,you provided some "links", but as I've said, they have garnered zero support. Quite the opposite, they've only lead to a few comments about how "weak" they are, and some BOOMERANG accusations towards you. And yes, WP:CANVASSING would be inappropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support though I must add this is not due to bad faith on the part of Chris. I simply don't think sanctions on one side will gain any traction. But, as was mentioned, the diffs provided here don't incriminate Chris and in at least one case they seem to incriminate Lucia. Sucks getting hit by the boomerang but that's how it is, if she is serious about improving the project then this will be a motivation to commit to more productive interactions and I don't imagine Chris will have difficulty with such sanctions anyway but in the event that he does, it will be noticed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

They provide "non-insightful comments" on the subject, and continuous choice of making this about me (the editor) over the article (content). That is shown clear as day in these links. and it shows how Also Chris "enjoys" saying such sly remarks everywhere (i say enjoy because these sly remarks are purely "optional" and in no way needed to convey his thoughts). Another thing, is that rather than contributing to the vote, he makes radical accusations right away. Something that had garnered no comments yet, and already Chris classifies things as drama, continues to dismiss things saying he has no part of it, and continues to come back. And again this editor bombards the discussion with his own personal view. And at least one editor editor noticed the disruption during the discussion. i linked that aswell.

Either way, it shows a lot. weak doesn't mean "nothing" it shows that there is something there. even if all of it is considered weak, as a whole it shows something significant. the responce to my talkpage for such harrassment was based of a completely neutral discussion on a certain article. And he chose to flare up on my talkpage and talk about me having the last word, which was not the case.

And its not a complete stretch when you see these links. it would've been more relevant if i was able to link how close these discussions have been and how they relate to his behavior overall, but finding a way to link those and organize them, would be difficult to convey. but keep in mind these are all closely connected.. still, some accusations against me are merely small. and based not entirely on the issues of me and Chris. what you find with me would be small (i'm not even going to say that theres more than 2 out there) isolated events, and even then we are still talking about chris, none of which prove i have been provoking, combatant, or rude to him in the recent past.

But i'm simply tired of discussing this. his behavior will continue to be noted. If only i could bold the problematic areas during a preview so that you cansee what parts to focus on. (edit conflict)21:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Actually, Lucia, Chris does not want to interact with you. How about you not follow ChrisGualtieri? On IRC, he was upset, he does not want to be near you or interact with you. And the diff provided by me shows that you attack more editors than only ChrisGualtieri. Also, I proposed an indefinite block, not a ban. The fact that we need to continue to comment shows how Lucia is a time sink and a net negative to the project and keeping her blocked until she understands how to collaborate with others civilly, calmly, and respectfully. Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 21:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• That's a good point, Sportzilla. She's been arguing with every single person on this thread, posting entire books underneath each comment. The other person doesn't seem to be doing that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo:this ANI itself proves nothing, and should not be taken into example. the flaw into WP:BOOMERANG is that even if there is evidence, rather than acting against both, or the one that indeed did the issue, the problem is still that one or both people get scott free. WP:BOOMERANG is an example. but to me it also allows people to ssee everything at face value. like i said, i provided links. and SPortzilla has felt so strongly merely because he had more interaciton with Chris. that's all. And my links do prove a point, and that is that what Sportzilla claims about ChrisGualtieri isn't true.Lucia Black (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Sportzilla, stop it. if you choose to believe chris on whatever he claims, that s on you, but don't force it onto me as if its the truth. the links don't lie. who made clear choices to interact with a certain editor he claims to interact with? the links says it all. even if one claims that it cannot incriminate, what you saying right now, isn't what chris is actually doing.Lucia Black (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• weak support, pending clarification though I think a topic ban of Lucia Black from the areas CG typically edits would be wiser. If those diffs are the worst of CG, there really isn't a basis for doing anything. He sounds frustrated but I'm not seeing actionable issues. That said, Chris IME has communication and ownership issues (which I think he's been improving on) so the two-way thing isn't utterly unreasonable. I'd like a clearer proposal though. Can they comment on each other's comments? AFAIK, this type of restriction hasn't been placed before and given the personalities, I foresee much boundary pushing. So getting things clear early would be helpful. Hobit (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ah hell, I'll bite and throw my two cents at each diff.

1. What is remotely provoking about Chris's question? (What the hell is "irrelevant provoking"?)
2. Given that you argued in a circular fashion with regards to Chris's original point, I doubt anyone could blame him for dismissing you.
3. Your declaration to make "a bold edit, and once you revert it, per BRD rule, you will have to continue to discuss it until gaining consensus, and that ultimately will cause problems with GA status per stability issues" is basically gaming WP:BRD. Something even Huon brought up.
4. (Lumping all the "personal attack" diffs into 1 comment) Have to say that there is nothing remotely anything in NPA territory there.
5. This is quite a "comment on the content not the editor" sort of post. Given your history, it seems about par for the course really and really doesn't fall into harassment territory. Somewhat pointed and uncivil, certainly, but harassing? No.
6. False accusations of what? Filibustering? Hate to put it this way, but reading through the discussions that you and Chris took part in, all I saw was a lot of roundabout argument from you that didn't advance the discussion in any way. Can't say that's a false accusation.
7. This is about the only one I could remotely agree with.
8. A misrepresentation of what Knowledgekid87 actually said. They made a point that Chris threw the first punch, metaphorically speaking, and nothing about whether it was a false accusation.

All in all, this case is as weak as a termite infested house. Blackmane (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to make an alternate proposal to see if maybe removing Lucia from Chris's main areas of editing and a mutual IBAN may solve things. And these sanctions need to be indefinite, mostly because Lucia cannot be trusted to follow a restriction. You may recall that she managed to violate the restricitons almost every day. I'm making an alternate proposal below. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 19:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, the case is extremely weak, and if anything, the difs only go to prove that she doesn't fundamentally understand WP:NPA or WP:CIV. I honestly think she should be banned from ANI. If she truly has something that needs reporting, she could notify an Admin or something. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Here is a new proposal.

1. Lucia Black and ChrisGualtieri are indefinitely banned from commenting on, at, or mentioning about the other. The normal exceptions apply. Persisting violations will result in escalating blocks up to and including an indefinite block.
2. Lucia Black may be banned from any page in all namespaces if any individual administrator thinks that she is causing disruption.
3. Lucia Black is also banned from filing a report at any administrative noticeboard. If something needs to be reported, she can ask an individual administrator.

All restrictions will be for an indefinite duration.

Here is the proposal. This is a new proposal as an alternative to 1 and 2. Part 1 is what should've happened a while ago. Part 2 is mostly because Lucia has also been seen to disrupt pages that don't concern ChrisGualtieri. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 19:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Until the quantity of clue improves, there is little to no reason for volunteers at large to have to put up with the disruption and no-holds-barred argument style presented by Lucia. The other disputants have kept their noses clean so it seems we finally have the single irritant to cut from the flesh. Hasteur (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - everything I've said above. I prefer proposal 2, but approve of 3 as well. Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - This is the only way to ensure that I can continue to work in peace without further issues. It is terrible that I won't be able to get the articles to GA or FA, but this has been too much to handle. (Answered below.) I'm overwhelmed, miserable and exhausted. I ask, will there be a way in which I can request changes or submit improvements to a third party before making edits go live? I think this would head off additional problems. Either way, this needs to be done. Another ANI without this resolution will only result in another ANI and a future waste of time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'd imagine you'd be able to carry on with anything you've nominated/brought up to GA/FA standard, otherwise that doesn't really help anyone out. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• @ChrisGualtieri: -- Of course you would be able to continue with your articles. What this does is prevent Lucia from provoking. Since an admin can ban her from any page she is disrupting. If you both are editing a GA nominee or FA candidate, then this basically says that if Lucia is causing a ruckus, then an admin can remove her from the page/article in question. I also added per Sergecross73 that she is also banned from filing a report at noticeboards, since nothing good comes out of it and quite frankly, there is no good reason why she should still have access to these noticeboards, since most of what she does is filing frivolous reports about Chris. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• What Hasteur says. (Though, I must say, I really enjoyed NE Ent's proposal.) Or just block right now, based on the rather clueless and certainly interminable rebuttals in this ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• I completely understand. I want to try to find a solution already. NE Ent's proposal sounds good, but personally, indeffing Lucia now may be it, or maybe this proposal. Either way, Lucia's responses say enough for themselves. Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 03:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• For anyone who cares: this page explains the conflict to a T. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• NOt reallly. and i'm content with iths, because the only editor who causes trouble is Chris. And indefinitely locking me wouldn't even work SPortzilla, i've given you the chance to prove when i have been disruptive and abusive to Chris, and you continue to just burst out claims, rather than defending your point. If chris indeed isn't happy, he can avoid the conflict and claims.

• I dont have time to be on top of every discussion here. And just trying to respond will result in several edit conflicts.Lucia Black (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Given that both Lucia and Chris agree with this. Although, I'd also suggest that any attempts to game these restrictions should be grounds for an immediate indef, such as getting in on an article just to prevent each other from nominating for GA or what have you. Blackmane (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment@Blackmane: fair enough. but if real issues are found in a GA< that doesn't stop either of us from bringing them up.Lucia Black (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• No. The GA process always involves 2+ people. If there are issues, they will be brought up by others. Judging by how much the terms "indef block" and "indef interaction ban" keep coming up over and over again in regards to your interactions with Chris, I'd say there's just about no possibility that your contribution would be considered constructive in such a scenario. Sergecross73 msg me 21:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If a GA passes, and the issue is still there, it wouldn't stop me from bringing it up on the talkpage without interacting with Chris. keep in mind, this is brought up because Ghost in the Shell (film) in which i actually had a point and they did eventually fix the issue i brought up (the links are provided, and hshows how aggressive and slow it took Chris to finally realize). and even then, the GA nominator didn't even understand how the need for third party source worked. either way....if issues are brought up and there's a debate on it, that could be considered a fault in "stability" as it was used against kingdom hearts 358/2 days. So its not like i was making it up to stop GA.

BUt, so long as "i" don't interact with him, that doesn't stop me from bringing up issues in the article, and considering there's a huge lapse in the topics, i think this proposal is intentionally trying to find a way to indef block. obviously, leeway has to be done such as allow commenting in the same discussion.

otherwise, you're just trying to make it look like you gave us a chance to fix it.Lucia Black (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No. No commenting in the same discussion. If you think that that's even a remotely possible outcome of this whole thread you really lack clue. If this proposal passes, your comment on a GA of theirs is grounds for a block in the eyes of most admins, I suppose--including this one. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Drmies summed it up nicely. That's precisely the sort of gaming the restrictions that should be grounds for a block. The fact that you see this proposal as a way of "intentionally trying to find a way to indef block" is a symptom of the behaviour that the bans are supposed to stop. These restrictions must be as strict and as watertight as possible to stop any sort of wiggle room. Blackmane (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Drmies and Blackmane. Lucia still seems unware as to how she's in the wrong here, so there's no way she'd be able to act appropriately in the scenario outlined. Its for that reason that Lucia shouldn't even really want to be able to do that. It would almost certainly erupt into a discussion that would lead to her block. Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaming the restriction is more like displeasing the purpose who made it. You have to understand, that there is another form of gaming that can flourish by not allowing to even interfere in the discussion. that means, that if our vote is necessary (yes, necessary) to provide question on the topic. THat would mean.

Of course i would want this, if the conditions were met that we can both edit and not be stumped by "oh she reverted me...what the heck do i do now? i dont want to get blocked. so i'll have to deal with it. but the next time i see an edit of hers, i'll do the same and she wouldn't be able to a thing about it" it can easily happen.

i can interact with the same areas with Chris. So long as Chris doesn't flare up and makes ridiculous accusations, and just actually contribute to the discussion WITHOUT making comments on me. (which is why I've challenged everyone in the ANI to show where I've deserved this behavior after the ANI and even after i offered "peace"). But that's simply the problem. If you want to "dumb it down, so there's no leeway for you to hear a thing". the problem here is clearly shown....

It still needs to be fleshed out. If you dont want me and Chris interacting at all, one or the other can still edit the articles we've had. And therefore we would have to ignore BRD rules, or just allow the Bold edit until someone does so. Unless another editor makes it in, and we just praying from then on. Or! lets say we're voting for split or merge, and its pretty tied down, and need probably one more vote to help either side. From then on, its whoever gets there first, gets to keep staying.

THere is easily more animosity from this point on. and you're only making this proposal to never hear about it again. Which means, even if one manages to get break this rule, i'm not doubting that you will block both of us either way.Lucia Black (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, you seem to have failed completely to see the point. An interaction ban is very explicit.

1. You cannot involve yourself in a discussion that Chris is in.
2. You can edit in the same areas as Chris, and vice versa, but at no time can you both be in the same discussion at the same time. The fact that you cannot see the issues you are causing is the lack of clue that pretty much everyone has commented on so far.
3. I'm fairly sure that Chris will see the sense behind leaving articles that you've performed major contributions to. You leave him to articles he has made major contributions on and in return he is expected to do the same. If something needs to be changed, then it will take however long it takes to be changed. There is no WP:DEADLINE.
4. The fact that you think that a vote for a merge or split is based entirely on obtaining 51%/49% is a fundamental lack of clue about consensus. Also, that you think there are "sides" that have to win a vote is basic battleground mentality.

And the last, thankfully(!), you've touched upon the crux of the proposal and at last showing a glimmer of clue. The whole point is that no one wants to see you raise these petty squabbles on ANI anymore, we're all sick and tired of it. Blackmane (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

then rules 2 and 3 would be enough, this isn't really proposed as an interaction ban, or claiming it to be one. the second point you brought up makes no sense. its like you bring one point, and reason with it by something irrelevant.

and i'm prepared to do the same, but keep in mind for the third point, thats a complete "etiquette". And even though Chris had chosen to make some form of way to shun me, he does this in a very immature way, by immediately choosing to revert edits i've made in articles involving another wikiproject. so by this to occur, Chris has to be forced to avoid me, even when discussions are being brought up.Lucia Black (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Seems like the best option at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Observing the many threads on this topic at ANI shows that the proposed remedy is desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Like some other editors, I did enjoy NE Ent's proposal but this one does take it a bit farther regarding these inappropriate noticeboard threads one of the two individual's has filed. This is a fine solution and the community at large ought to assist in notifying admins should a violation warranting a block occur. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:16, 5 January 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.

Long-term issues at Simon Baron-Cohen

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 have been trying off and on to get BLP Simon Baron-Cohen correctly cited for almost six years; there have been ongoing problems of either competence, tendentious editing, IDHT, or possible COI.

SPAs inserting POV, original research, and reverting or removing maintenance tags date to at least 2007, with the following chronology of SPAs:

• SPA Sb205 (talk · contribs · logs) edited until May 21, 2009 (and also expanded Sam Baron), when
• SPA NigelPettersmithHugh questioned on May 21 whether SBC was editing his own article. At that point, Sb205 stopped editing, and one day later,
• SPA Minsk606 (talk · contribs · logs) started editing on May 22, 2009 (and also created the unsourced Dan Baron Cohen, [16]). Minsk606 edited until June 2009, with
• SPA Minsk101 (talk · contribs · logs) beginning to edit in August 2009 and editing to date. Minsk101 adds original research, text not supported by citations, has edit warred, initially would not respond on talk (but now does), and had removed book reviews critical of Baron-Cohen's work. Minsk101 denies having a COI (Baron-Cohen's grandmother emigrated from Minsk).

See User talk:Minsk101 for notices from myself, Jfdwolff, and Sjö about Minsk101's editing.

• Removing cn tags and blanking text critical of SBC, 26 December
• followed by edit warring[17][18] [19] to reinstate a list of 370 journal publications! [20]

When Minsk finally engaged in talk page discussion, it appeared there might be some improvement, but Minsk101 continues to insert text that is not verified by sources, and original research (diffs detailed on article talk). Both Martinevans123 and I suggested on talk that Minsk might propose sources on talk and let others incorporate them while s/he learns proper sourcing.

Yesterday I rewrote the entire article almost from scratch, incorporating all sources brought forward on talk to date, thinking that Minsk now understood sourcing;[21] same continued today even after multiple warnings and discussions and attempts at getting Minsk to understand Wikipedia's sourcing and content guidelines and policies.[22]

It doesn't appear that Minsk101 is able to edit this bio neutrally and competently; s/he seems determined to write an original research Curriculum vitae for Baron-Cohen on Wikipedia, with or without sources that support the text that s/he wants included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not involved with the content but I've had my eye on this BLP for a little while. I think there's very likely a connection between the three named SPA accounts provided, but an SPI case probably won't go anywhere because the older accounts are far too stale to do anything about, and it's very possible/plausible that the passwords were simply lost or forgotten.

  Regarding the BLP content, Minsk's edits started off pretty bad and included edit-warring. They have slowly gotten better but are still not producing content that meets with BLP standards. As Sandy has pointed out, Minsk's edits have still been putting in content not totally supported by the sources cited, are using primary sources in questionable ways, and are causing extra work for others because they're not formatted properly. Minsk has been a bit slow to find their own User Talk page and the article Talk page but has indeed found them. Minsk seems to understand that their edits haven't been acceptable (see for example this) and appeared to agree to propose edits first (see this), but has since been going ahead and adding WP:OR and primary sources as Sandy points out. I'm trying to AGF but I have been getting the impression that Minsk is just saying what they expect the other editors want to hear, without actually following through on it, or at least not all the way.

  I was considering a 24 hour block for BLP problems until this ANI thread started, but now I think I'm going to ask Minsk to avoid editing articles and just respond here at this ANI thread until it's resolved. Zad68 04:49, 3 January 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.

Archiving

I've just reverted ClueBot's archiving of this page, since it seemed to be wrong in removing some threads that weren't really stale, considering the intervention of the holidays. If I'm wrong, please revert me, or archive by hand based on actual staleness and not simply the advancement of the date. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You'll probably need to put a "Bump" and sign with datestamp in each, or else they'll just be archived again in a few hours ES&L 17:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The archive configuration had been set to 24, I've just set it back to 36 (hours). Note the visible "36" that appears on top of the page is actually in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader and not the functional number, which is in non-visible text at the very top of this page. NE Ent 16:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Since you reverted [23] but not [24], a lot of threads are now duplicated, existing both here and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive824. Since the archive has been edited since then, it can't be cleanly undone. Can you try to clean this up? Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you clearly know what the duplicated threads are, why not just delete them in the archive? Why make me duplicate your work? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know all the ones that are. I just saw a few were duplicated, tried to undo ClueBot's edit there, and it failed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we actually know that this is a problem? I frequently see sections that have been archived restored to the main page by hand, I assume without deleting the archived version, and things seem to get dealt with properly when the section is eventually archioved for good by the bot. Is that not the case? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If the archives get beyond a certain size, the search function fails, which can be problematic. I've removed the duplicate I found. NE Ent 02:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I believe I've removed all threads that were duplicated between this page and Archive824, or duplicated within the Archive by being archived twice. I should have, of course, undone the archive at 824 when I undid it here, which would have avoided this problem. My error, and my apologies. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

ClueBot not archiving

ClueBot is not archiving like it is suppose to. If sections older than 36 hours are to be archived, at least 5 of the sections above should have been archived days ago:

• Continued deletions... : 17:35, 2 January, next edit 04:51, 5 January
• User:Joefromrandb: 21:25, 3 Jan, next edit 15:05, 6 Jan
• Is it ok... : 23:54, 1 Jan, next edit 07:39, 5 Jan
• user:Lgcsmasamiya: 01:57, 2 Jan, next edit 15:23, 6 Jan (closure)
• Long-term issues... : 04:49, 3 Jan, next edit 18:07, 5 Jan (closure)

ClueBot (II or III, the notice says II but III has been doing what little gets done) has had a hit-or-miss archiving history since early December; see ClueBot III's contributions to this page. I notified ClueBot Commons on 30 December that this noticeboard was not being archived, but it is still (not) happening. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

ClueBot is often misunderstood but also can be buggy at times. The 36 hour threshold means sections that haven't been edited in 36 hours are archived. ClueBot does not pay attention to timestamps. With that in mind, if CB only runs once per day, the 36 hour setting essentially means 48. Brad (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

36 becomes 48? "Continued deletions..." had 59 hours between edits; "User:Joe" 55 hours, "Is it ok..." 80 hours, "user:Lgc" 85 hours, and "Long-term abuse..." 50 hours. ClueBot may be misunderstood, but I am not misunderstanding the difference between 48 and 85 hours. I am also not misunderstanding ClueBot's contribution history: it is archiving only once every three days, twice as long as the 36 hour notice. This board is too active for such a delay. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Community sanctions: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To start with, I suppose I should remind everyone that consensus is not a vote. I do not count "votes", but rather read all the comments to determine consensus. (And there was a bit of history to read over as well, for context.)

This rfc essentially had 3 options concerning 3 editors: Baseball Bugs, and μηδείς, and The Rambling Man.

• Option 1: Has fairly strong consensus to apply to all three editors, as stated. Please see in particular WP:IBAN and WP:BANEX.
• Option 2: Has consensus (noting that indefinite is not interminable - especially as there is a criteria for appeal).
• Option 3: No consensus.

And note: There was significant concern about "decorum" and "disruption" at the Reference desk (and its talk pages and subpages). This should be kept in mind for the future. While immediate discretionary sanctions did not have consensus per se (on technical grounds, for example), the general consensus is that if this continues, this activity should be sanctioned. So with that in mind, all three editors are to be considered warned (even if following a successful appeal of one or more of the options) that continuing this activity will result in further sanction, such as being blocked by any uninvolved admin.

Since this has been archived, but has been requested for closure, I'm closing this here, but will drop a note on all three editor's talk pages, and on the request for closures page. - jc37 18:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Per several requests for clarification, it would seem to be apparent that this close wasn't as clear as it should have been,. (IN particular concerning option #2) While the unfortunate phrasing was in the proposal, and while it would seem clear that there was no confusion amongst commenters what was intended in the proposal, as this affects what 3 editors may edit, I think it's worth clarifying this.

I am re-affirming that I see consensus in the discussion for enacting options 1 and 2. Option 1 had definite overwhelming support. And while Option 2 did not have as much support as opposed to opposition, it still had consensus. It varied slightly between the individuals (a few commenters thought that only one or more of each of the editors should be affected), but overall, it was clear that the commenters felt that the disruption at the reference desk pages needed to stop, and option 2 was the suggested way.

So with that in mind, to try to re-phrase:

The three editors in question are page banned (See WP:BAN) from the WP:Reference Desk and all it's talk pages, subpages, and any other directly related pages. (If in doubt, ask someone before editing.)

I have re-read the discussion in terms of the length of appeal, and I think it's fair to say that, in general, 6 months was considered too much or too long. So with that in mind, while the ban is still indefinite, there is no restriction upon when any of the editors may appeal the page ban for themselves. Though obviously, repetitively appealing a ban more often than let's say once every few months may be seen by the community as disruptive.

I will drop a note to each of the editors in question concerning this clarification of the close. - jc37 20:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Yes, one more ANI thread on this, but this should end it.

Found this which provoked an arbitrator to warn. This saga has gone on long enough. As an uninvolved administrator, I hereby propopse the following three community sanctions:

1. The Rambling Man is banned from any interactions with Medeis and Baseball Bugs, indefinitely. Baseball Bugs and Medeis are banned from any interactions with The Rambling Man, indefinitely. These bans include article, talk, wikipedia, and user space, without exception. No mention of the others or their actions shall be permitted. These may be appealed to the community not less than one year after they become effective.

2. The Rambling Man, Medeis, and Baseball Bugs are topic-banned from the Reference Desk, indefinitely. This may be appealed to the community not less than six months after they become effective.

3. The Rambling Man, Medeis, and Baseball Bugs are subject to Standard Discretionary Sanctions, indefinitely. This may be appealed to the community not less than one year after they become effective.

These are independent proposals, but all three proposals cover all three editors.

• Support 1, 2, 3 as proposer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support mutual interaction ban between myself and TRM assuming he also supports it. There's no justification for any other action against any of us, and none has been given. μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1 - I concur with Medeis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem with not imposing item 1 is that it will give TRM license to continue to stalk and harass Medeis and me. He's been told multiple times to disengage, but he won't - and he ridicules those who so advise him.[25] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Any sanctions on The Rambling Man. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Dude should've dropped the matter and let another mop handle it. He edit warred and hounded the two other editors. If a non-admin had that string of edits, he'd be indeffed pbp 06:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I am not going to withdraw my support for a mutual interaction ban if TRM supports it, but there is no way this admin is univolved. Not only has this administrator been recently involved with The Rambling Man (apparently at no fault of TRM's), he has also advised MilesMoney, on whose status I recently commented critically at ANI, that he would have unblocked him "I would have unblocked" for a recent block. This admin is obviously not an uninvolved party. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

TRM did that removal for a bunch of admins that were "notified" if I recall right (someone should check his edit log), that was incidental and doesn't predispose me any way towards him. Note it was TRM's comment linked above (on Medeis' talk page) that NewYorkBrad went and warned him over that was the straw that broke the camel's back here, so I don't know whether you'd presume I'm biased for or against him. Regarding the MilesMoney side, having an extremely active community editor up for sanctions / banning and blocked at the same time is extremely unusual and I was trying to ensure we got the process as exactly correct as possible despite that. The unblock I was willing to do was for purposes of his discussing the ban proposal at ANI only, which is what the other admin unblocked him to do. Bishonen's block was appropriate.

Administrators can't be noticeboard active without interacting with people. If you think I'm advocating for someone improperly please be specific. I have a long history of being somewhat pals with Baseball Bugs going approximately back to 2007 when he started editing, though less so in the last year because I've been busy elsewhere. I am treating him equally here, I think he's as much at fault as anyone (perhaps moreso). None of which matters for ones ability to file a community sanction case. Anyone, involved or uninvolved, can do that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1 only Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1. Also 3 if others support it. Not convinced 2 is justified at the moment except perhaps for TRM as they only recently appeared on RD, and most of their contributions appear to be sniping at BB & μηδείς, but 1 should put an end to that. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nil, I oppose any non-mutual and unnecessary sanctions. I have found TRM's contributions to be useful for the most part. Any inspection of my edits in regard to his edits over the last year will show this. μηδείς (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, as I said in my statement I was only refering to TRM's contributions to the RD and WT:RD, and I stand by my comment. And prior to 13 December, they hadn't edited the RD or WT:RD since June except for this edit [26]. I don't recall what their editing on the RD/WT:RD was like in May and earlier when they seemed to have a few edits. Perhaps it was great. But most of their edits on RD/WT:RD in recent times that I've seen have been sniping at either you or BB. I dislike one sided bans as well, but if TRM isn't going to do anything better on the RD, such a ban may be a necessary evil whatever else they may do elsewhere (which I don't really know and don't really care). On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary since 1 should put an end to the behaviour. If they want to then start contributing productively to the RD and WT:RD, great. If not, that's up to them but doesn't really matter. BTW, the only reason I mentioned this at all is I wanted to explain why I opposed 2. In the case of BB and you, I opposed it because I don't think it's deserved or needed yet (which is not to say either of your behaviour has been perfect). The case of TRM is a little different as it may be deserved, but I don't think it's needed if we pass 1. Nil Einne (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Inquiry? can we have it specified that any interaction ban should not prevent TRM, BB, or myself from posting or the same page, so long as we don't directly address each other (i.e., TRM to myself or Bugs), or indirectly criticize each other? The reason I ask is that all three editors have a long history of contributions. For example, see TRM's very helpful history at WP:ITN, with only occasional and usually civil disagreement between him and me there. I ask this because I am unfamiliar with interacion bans, and don't think too broad a one is necessary. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The interaction ban would follow the terms of Wikipedia:Interaction ban, so you can participate in the same discussion, let alone the same page provided you avoid replying to, referring to or otherwise involving the other editor. On the other hand, referring to the other editor in any way anywhere on wikipedia would be a problem (doesn't matter if it's criticism or not). This could include stuff like the now deleted content on TRM's user page [27] as well as the comment you made to Jayron32 [28]. Nil Einne (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 3 2 I can't really fathom, but TRM interacting with Bugs is causing nothing but trouble. Likewise, Bugs whining about TRM is causing nothing but trouble pbp 06:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - IBANS are indicative of deeper problems with disruption issues. But maybe this group just needs to calm down and stop sniping at each other. Baseball Bugs is a character, and he's aware of that. Why does this have to come to an IBAN? Walk the hell away from each other. It's really easy. Doc talk 06:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This was advised by just about everyone. It does not seem to have worked. Advice is not enforcable; a community sanction is. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support the interaction bans. I previously suggested a partial topic ban for Bugs and Medeis regarding the ref desks - that they be banned from posting anything but direct answers to the initial question asked - with a cited source or Wikilink. I still think that this might work - and if it doesn't, a full ban on ref desks will still be an option. Regardless of any other issues, at the core of this dispute is the behaviour of these two individuals on the ref desks, where both regularly treat questions as an excuse for political soapboxing, sniping at each other and the like. If they can demonstrate their usefulness on the ref desks, fine. If they can't do so without treating them as a forum cum bearpit, I'm sure we will manage without them... AndyTheGrump (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• There are three individuals up for sanctions here, not two. Is the third editor not an issue when the others are? Doc talk 07:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've personally only noticed it as involving Bugs and Medeis - at least as a long-term problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, but all three sanctions mention TRM equally if I'm reading it right. So it's apparently not just Bugs and Medeis that need some sort of yoke on them. In other words: no one side is actually "right" over the other. Sometimes it takes three to tango? Doc talk 07:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's my take on it AndyTheGrump is correct that BB and μηδείς are the bigger long term problems on the RD albeit in different ways.

μηδείς's biggest problem has been their desire to close (hat) every single question or subdiscussion they feel is inappropriate. Many of their closures are contentious and even worse, despite their hatting and frequent strongly criticism of these discussions, they've been far from perfect themselves. However μηδείς does seem to have gotten better and I think is making fewer closures recently. μηδείς does make plenty of useful contributions.

BB is BB. Many of their contributions are useful although sometimes in typical BB fashion they don't come across few well. Many of their responses are jokes and other stuff people find somewhat disruptive.

There are other issues with both but I don't want this to be too long.

TRM isn't a long term problem on the RD. They can't be since as I mentioned above, between 26th June and 13th December, they only had one comment on the RD or WT:RD. I consider myself a regular at the RD for several years now (except for maths, language & entertainment), think of that what you will, but don't really associate TRM as someone I recall seeing much of at the RD.

That's in itself is fine, I'm not saying outsiders have no right to comment, criticise or recommend stuff. The problem is since TRM started to show up again in 13th December, most of their comments, primarily WT:RD but also at WP:RD have been sniping at BB and μηδείς.

As I said, I'm fine with people criticising the RD or its contributors and recommending how to improve it. But most of TRM's contributions don't really seem to be constructive criticism instead simple sniping and I would say it's gotten worse as time has gone on.

Okay to be fair some of their replies on the RD itself have contained useful information which is great. Except even in those cases these replies have been to BB or perhaps μηδείς and have contained some degree of apparent sniping. It's normal and accepted to fairly criticise answers you feel are unhelpful, particularly if you offer clarification. I've done it a fair amount, and of course it's more likely to happen with someone who makes more poor answers. But it just seems to me TRM is frequently going to far particularly when combined with the fact they don't seem to be doing much else on RD/WT:RD, hence my comment above about feeling TRM is the clearer problem at the moment. Even some of the older comments from May/June (to the RD/WT:RD) appeared to be similar although I did see quite a few better contributions then.

And to be clear, BB being BB has frequently given back as good as they have received to TRM. μηδείς much less so which is fairly normal. But BB has continued to make their, sometimes helpful sometimes less so, contributions to the RD.

I don't know much about what's going on outside the RD, it does seem μηδείς and TRM have some problems on ITN/C which I don't check out much any more. And I understand why TRM is pissed off at μηδείς's comment on Jayron32's talk page. Ultimately it does seem an interaction ban would help.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Borderline TL;dr, but I get the point. I have sniped at Baseball Bug and Medeis (mea culpa) but based on their current edit patterns, they do not serve their audience correctly. They happily joke around and piss-take. It's not what I believe a "reference desk" editor should be doing, and many, many others have stated similarly. A real pity that it's got this far, that these two "editors" have been able to get away with it for so long. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I take it that you really don't condone then this crappy piss-take joke [29] on the desks? Yet you edit-warred over it over Medeis objections [30][31][32]. Perhaps a wp:trout is in order for that. -Modocc (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support IBAN, Neutral on the others for now. If an IBAN prompts these three to get back to positive content work rather than wasting their time and energy sniping at each other, that's a good thing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC).
• Support 1. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 09:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all. I don't think the situation has risen to the level where this sort of action is necessary. See Doc9871's comment above. This generally strikes me as being like trying to accomplish toenailing with a sledgehammer: it could accomplish the task, but it's not the right tool, and the outcome would probably be sloppy and serves to make the community look like poor craftspeople generally. Specifically, I think that if the parties agree to not interact, or at least not interact disruptively, we can all get back to work. Even if an interaction ban is imposed, I think it should be much shorter and self-expiring. Bans, like blocks, are a preventive tool, and leaving something in place until someone appeals it isn't usually preventive unless it's clear—crystal clear—that the parties are incapable of working within community standards. Before us, we have three prolific contributors who have been around for a good long while. I think that in and of itself counsels against making any kind of restrictions indefinite, at least not without a substantial record of evidence that this has changed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all Too soon, too harsh, and would shift, not solve the problem; ambiguous references will be made and argued about. No evidence has been presenting that these editors are disrupting the encyclopedia (mainspace). NE Ent 10:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support the interaction ban - which TRM seems happy with anyway, and will therefore stick to. The others on the other hand are wind-up merchants, and I would also support them two to be banned from the ref desk. GiantSnowman 10:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all although 2 has merit. I have no inclination to interact with these two editors ever again, but don't see any requirement for any formal sanctions. More troubling seems to be the fact that any formal sanction like this would prevent me filing an RFC on the undesirable behaviour of those two editors at the reference desk, which has been noted variously at WT:RD and above, thus giving them carte blanche to carry on regardless. (Incidentally, the posting admin seems a little trigger-happy and keen to punish me, having blocked me, albeit erroneously, at a moment's notice this morning.) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all as disproportionate and too soon etc. -- KTC (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all Draconian solutions rarely work, and this one consists of a whole slew of separate "solutions" none of which is likely to help as much as hinder the project. I greatly respect the proposer, but suggest that a much simpler proposal would suffice -- such as maybe a one month "do not respond to each other in any derogatory fashion whatsoever" sanction. Collect (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all overkill Agathoclea (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I believe it is unwise to invoke any sanctions (such as Proposal 2.) that would shift BB's energies to editing the Article space. What few edits he has made there lately seem to be externally linked rubbish that has to be cleaned up/reverted by others. 54.224.53.210 (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  The above is the latest in a series of harassment-only IP's based in the DC area (obviously the same guy, IP-hopping):

54.224.35.46 (talk · contribs)

54.224.206.154 (talk · contribs)

54.242.221.254 (talk · contribs)

54.224.53.210 (talk · contribs)

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Point of order sanction 3 states "Standard Discretionary Sanctions" without linking to what is meant by the phrase; common wiki usage for the phrase is WP:AC/DS which this forum cannot impose. NE Ent 15:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be novel, but the community has inherent authority, and cribbing arbcom's language for a sanction package doesn't change the underlying authority. It would just establish DS as a common remedy for both community and Arbcom. That said, lack of support here evident for 2, 3. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

2 is a great idea, and I'm all up for that, as it's the basis of this issue. The sooner the other "editors" stop using the RD as they personal sandbox, the better. A break from that, and maybe a focus for them on improving the mainspace, would be perfect. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The general term for community based sanctions has been "general sanctions"; I don't believe there's a standard wording like AC/DS but the wording of a previous sanction could be copy pasted. NE Ent 21:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1. Support 2 for Baseball Bugs only, and only if length of time lessened. -- Let's not lose sight of the fact that this bad blood is at least in part a symptom of chronically problematic refdesk edits/answers -- which really should be the greater concern. I've not seen TRM provide the kind of frequently unhelpful and/or insulting kinds of answers I've seen out of the other two -- and then it only seems to be Bugs who shows absolutely no indication of knowing/caring he's done anything wrong or showing any inclination he'll stop (how many times are people going to say "Baseball Bugs is Baseball Bugs" as an excuse to look the other way a la "boys will be boys?"). That being said, an indef refdesk ban is overkill. All three of these users, Bugs included, do seem genuine in their dedication to Wikipedia and to the refdesk, but at the same time there needs to be proof of consequences for using it inappropriately despite countless requests/warnings not to. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Wait for the RFC I would like to see a proper discussion of B and M's conduct at the reference desks and would be sorry if that doesn't not take place because T, who has said he is working on it, can't mention their names. 184.147.128.82 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That's a good point, as it would likewise prevent us from creating an RFC about TRM and his stalking and harassment of other editors (which is by no means limited to just Medeis and me). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    • So do you or do you not support the interaction ban? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I do support it (Option 1), as I already said. It just has to be both directions. It would be unfair to allow you to continue stalking and harassing us while depriving us of the capability to defend ourselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
        • I don't recall suggesting it should be a one-way interaction ban. In fact, the only suggestion of that nature has been the polar opposite. The fundamental issue here is that I've been the only person bold enough to engage with you both to ask you to stop using the Reference Desks as your own personal play areas. And it appears, from the notes above and elsewhere, that I'm far from alone in that. So, is it option 1 (interaction ban all round) or not option 1 (no interaction ban all round)? It's a simple question. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Support 1, and 2 vis-a-vis Medeis and Baseball Bugs only Oppose Topic ban for TRM. Per Andy mostly. Too much treating WP like a forum to air their opinions. Bugs especially seems to attract drama; he used to do it on ANI and now he's just moved the same behavior to another venue where it's just as disruptive. N^oformation ^Talk 16:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In contrast to TRM, who frequently uses the edit summaries as a forum to air his opinions, ranging from the snippy and condescending to the vulgar and childish. What do you intend to do about that? Or does he get a free pass because he's an admin? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know he was an admin until you pointed that out, and why would I care if he is an admin? I have no love for bureaucratic immunity. N^oformation ^Talk 17:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So, what can be done about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that what I support passes, if the problem were to continue I would support the same sanction for him. N^oformation ^Talk 17:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't stop him from doing it to other editors, as he does now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be profitable to this process if you notified these "other editors" about this particular discussion. After all, why would you wish for them not to know about the opportunity to discuss my behaviour? Please let us and them know as soon as practicable about the current situation, before the possible impending sanctions limit your ability to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The infantile feuding involving these three editors has got to stop. Not only has it disrupted the reference desks and their talkpages, but in December the rampant bickering between The Rambling Man and Medeis became a huge distraction on WP:ITN, an important process for maintaining the main page, as well. (To their credit, that page has been quieter recently.) I would like to think that this thread would serve as a wakeup call for all three of these editors but unfortunately I doubt it. I dare them to prove me wrong. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • How helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - While I'm not happy with how TRM has handled this, I think that BB and Medeis are the primary instigators. I'm not convinced that characterising this as a problem with their interactions, as such, is productive. It is the way they interact with users generally, and treat RD (and to a lesser extent ITNC) as their personal playground. Wikipedia needs to stop being so enabling of smug rule-gaming trolls. BB's behaviour was censured in the Chelsea Manning ArbCom findings, but that was just a particularly gross outcropping of a general pattern of poor conduct which has gone on for years. Let's have a proposal which addresses the underlying actions, not the dysfunctional way TRM has tried to confront them. Action against TRM for that could follow if appropriate. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed, Alex is another editor to point out the playground behaviour of the other two "editors" here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I think it would be an excellent idea for editors and admins who aren't TRM to keep scrutiny on this and work constructively to end any underlying behavior concerns. Alex, are you willing to help? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
      • That would be nice. Also it would be nice if you, GWH, could formulate ANI reports that are viable (see NE Ent above) and not go trigger-happy blocking. You may be keen to get me off the project, even Medeis has noted that you seem to have a conflict here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere, I'm not too well at present, and have limited resources for WP activity. I also have prior history with both BB and Medeis, and so I'm not sure there's any hope of either of them responding to my attempts to 'work constructively'. What I want to see is the general pattern of their behaviours to be addressed through administrative action, not a labour-intensive support programme for smart people who clearly ought to know better. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I just hope that the very existence of this discussion is enough for all concerned to sit up and take notice that their behaviour is too often too disruptive. Nobody is perfect, and probably most of us veer from the strict pathway from time to time, and it's a judgement call as to how far is too far, and how often is too often. Well, the judgement of the three named editors is once again, and far from the first time, being called into serious question. Only an editor who is addicted to being the centre of attention at all costs, even at the cost of their reputation, would be happy with this state of affairs. If that were true in any case, the professional help they need is beyond our powers here. Do I believe this discussion will improve matters in any significant way? Sadly, no. Which is why I am formally abstaining from supporting or opposing any of the proposals. But there is always hope. Oh no, they can't take that away from me. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep, some editors spend their lives in the talk pages, making comedy remarks etc. Others spend them on articles, improving the Wikipedia. Problem is, the "existence of this discussion" will never be enough for some of those "former" "editors". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've got an alternate proposal. TRM alleges that I have never made a worthwhile edit.[33] Since he's stalking us anyway, let's put that to good use. I challenge TRM to watch every edit I make henceforth, and report (on my talk page) what is factually incorrect about each given edit when it appears. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Bugs, you've been here long enough to know that factual accuracy is not the only measure of usefulness. You proposal is obviously obstructive, and I find it hard to take it seriously. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you take seriously his claim that I have never made a useful edit??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's get something straight here: I HATE THIS PAGE. I've pretty much stopped editing articles because I got tired of fighting vandals. And I pretty much stopped coming here because nothing ever changes. The one area that I thought I could usefully contribute is the question-and-answer section. Now the stalker TRM wants to boot me off there too. But until someone starts looking at TRM's behavior also, this kind of problem is going to come up again and again until someone finally gets wise and sends him packing. The good thing about this scenario is that I'll be gone while y'all will be stuck with him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your diversionary tactic of talking about TRM's claim. You're proposing something pointless and unworkable, and asking useless questions of me. Your behaviour elsewhere on the site has been justly censured. Stop boring on about TRM and take a decent look at your own conduct. You've wilfully ignored my point about 'factual accuracy' being a red herring. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I had already resolved to reign in my sense of humor and try to stick to low-key, factual answers. I had already put myself on an interaction ban with TRM. I had gotten past his vile behavior and hoped that I would never have to see or hear from him again. Then my old pal GWH resurrects this already-tired debate. If you look at TRM's recent edits, you will see that he has been told repeatedly to disengage, but he won't do it. I'm trying to adhere to what he wants me to do, in terms of edits, but he keeps harping on the same theme. What am I supposed to do? How can I please him to the point where he won't stalk me anymore? And supposing he succeeds in his campaign to kill me off here, how do you intend to address that kind of problem with TRM in the future? Because I can guaran-damn-tee you his behavior is not going to improve. He'll just find other targets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The mature way to deal with these things is for each participant to acknowledge and take responsibility for their own behaviour, and then STOP talking. Absolutely NO finger pointing, no matter how justified you may feel it is. (Children use that sort of approach, but they eventually grow out of it.) I'm not saying it's easy. But it is essential. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Aha, the voice of reason. Ya know what? You're right. I have fallen into the "Look what you made me do" trap. I refuse to submit to that game any further. See ya. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I speak for many others when I say "We'll hold you to that promise, Baseball Bugs". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1,2, and 3. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 2 I stopped providing responses at the Ref Desk where I had been a regular for 3 or 4 years specifically because of the behaviour and attitudes expressed there by Medeis. I check in from time to time, hoping for a positive change. Things appear to be getting worse. Bielle (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2 only. The Reference Desk is the obvious locus of the dispute as had been identified by nearly all parties, including the proposer. It would be logical to address that issue first and see if the issue abates before adding interaction bans and discretionary sanctions. Why not try the flyswatter before pulling out the DDT? --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

TRM's conflict with Medeis spilled over to the reference desks. He was calling her a snake and called us "chatty snakes" [34]. -Modocc (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

So banning their posting on the reference desk would put an end to such posts, no? Or am I missing something? Why attempt to monitor and police their behavior across the entire project when the problem exists in only one part of the project?--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the "problem" has been exaggerated. Bugs and Medies have helped out with good faith edits and Bugs has stated he is attempting to improve his answers [35] and both I think have a better handle as to how to deal with trolling and banned users, for instance, Medies has been addressing marginal trollish posts and debates on the talkpage to get additional input. In addition, TRM has attempted to back up his case by posting quite a few quotes without diffs or context which is hardly fair to them. -Modocc (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Stipulating all of the above as true, I still don't see how project-wide remedies for localized disputes help. Given that you changed you !vote, I take it that you agree, possibly?--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes editors require interaction bans and given the level of disruption caused, this could very well be one of those times. At some point, what happens depends on them not continuing to bludgeon each other and instead rely on assistance from others that are much less involved when they need to deal with their issues. -Modocc (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

And after reading some of the posts I missed above, I've changed my !vote back again... ugh. -Modocc (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think concentration on the Ref Desks is missing the essence of the problem, which is hostile interaction across the project starting mid-December.

While there has recently been a lot of noise on the Reference Desk talk page, there is no ongoing dispute on the Ref Desk itself. Rather, TRM has rekindled a long-term grudge against me for that began about a year ago for my saying on the ITN desk that he was "rambling". This lead to a long series of attacks by him on talk pages and in edit summaries, and his intentional distortion of my user name, which you can see revived recently in his edit summaries calling me "meds" and "medeisss".

All this is unbelievably silly, but TRM recently decided to make the Ref Desk talk page part of the venue of his hounding. As part of that hounding he has attacked and criticized other editors as well, and refused the advice of various admins telling him there and in other places to cease and withdraw. In contrast, while you won't find a single case of me following TRM around that I am ware of, you will find him showing up out of the blue, for expample, when I posted on Mark Arsten and Deborahjay's talk pages on matters totally unrelated to him. Here (copied from the ANI against TRM in the most recent archive) is a list of some 23 reversions, hostile edits, and hostile edit summaries by TRM over the last few weeks, almost entirely without response by me:

expand to see 23 reversions and hostile summaries and talk page comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
16:37, 21 December 2013‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (154,635 bytes) (+26)‎ . . (→‎[posted] RD: David Coleman: help slippery one) (undo | thank) 16:37, 21 December 2013‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (154,609 bytes) (+234)‎ . . (→‎[posted] RD: David Coleman: feed the snake) (undo | thank) 16:31, 21 December 2013‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (154,375 bytes) (+406)‎ . . (→‎[posted] RD: David Coleman: not so sneaky) (undo | thank) The Rambling Man left a message on your talk page in "Note3". By the way, never post to my talk page ever again, the pair of you. If you have an issue with me, actually take it ANI and don't keep pretending a... 4 hours ago | View changes Your edits on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk have been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 4 hours ago Your edit on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 5 hours ago Your edit on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 5 hours ago The Rambling Man left a message on your talk page in "Note3". I agree, but please read the posts of the numerous people concerned with both of your edits to the reference desks. To see old contributors coming... 6 hours ago | View changes The Rambling Man thanked you for your edit on UFC 168. 1 day ago | View edit Your edit on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 1 day ago The Rambling Man mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "AN/I". 1 day ago | View changes 27 DECEMBER Your edit on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 8 days ago The Rambling Man mentioned you on the In the news/Candidates talk page in "[Posted] Mikhail Khodorkovs...". 8 days ago | View changes The Rambling Man mentioned you on the In the news/Candidates talk page in "[Posted] Mikhail Khodorkovs...". 8 days ago | View changes Your edit on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 8 days ago The Rambling Man mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "AN/I". 8 days ago | View changes 22 DECEMBER The Rambling Man mentioned you on the Reference desk talk page in "unhelpful edit". 9 days ago | View changes Your edit on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 9 days ago Your edit on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 9 days ago Your edit on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 9 days ago 21 DECEMBER Your edit on Radio Maryja has been reverted by Estlandia. (Show changes) 10 days ago 20 DECEMBER Matty.007 mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "Sneaky personal attacks by...". 11 days ago | View changes The Rambling Man mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "Sneaky personal attacks by...". 11 days ago | View changes 18 DECEMBER The Rambling Man and 1 other left a message on your talk page. 13 days ago | View changes Your edit on List of ethnic slurs has been reverted by Chisme. (Show changes) 15 days ago The Rambling Man mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "Sneaky personal attacks by...". 18 days ago | View changes The Rambling Man mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "Sneaky personal attacks by...". 19 days ago | View changes The Rambling Man mentioned you on the In the news/Candidates talk page in "[Ready] [Attention needed]...". 19 days ago | View changes The Rambling Man mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "Gunny". 19 days ago | View changes

These edits don't include his numerous disputes during that time with other editors, or his most recent edits and reversions on my talk page after agreeing to an interaction ban and after banning me from his talk page in the above collapsed comments.

Again, none of this has to do with the Ref Desk per se. Rather, it is a cross-wiki campaign of harassment that would have been solved long ago by an interaction ban, one which I am glad to have be mutual. I have no desire for TRM to be otherwise sanctioned, or for him to stop editting ITN or any of the other pages listed above except my talk page.

An interaction ban is very simple, objectively verifiable, and easily enforced. It does no harm to the project or the editors involved. Had it been in place a week ago, this problem would have been entirely solved a week ago. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately it appears that you've missed (or read and ignored) the many comments, some of which name you directly, for your disruption of the RD since 2012. It also appears that you've even driven regular editors away from the RDs. Those comments are both here and in the RD archives, as noted below. An interaction ban would not stop you and BB from continued ongoing disruption there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The "evidence" that there is a vendetta outside the reference desk areas is extremely unpersuasive. Not only is every entry stripped of context, but they are also unlinked. Meaning there is no way for another editor to evaluate these in context. Some of the comments, etc. weren't even posted by the editors named as parties. Some of the comments are actually thanking you or agreeing with Medeis. If anything, this is nothing more or less than evidence that the dispute is indeed "unbelievably silly" and strengthens my conviction that a mutual interaction ban is unwarranted. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be only "silly" if there wasn't substantive evidence supporting the fact that both RD regulars have driven other editors away from the RD with their editing "behaviour". That evidence exists, that fact is beyond dispute, and is part of what needs to be resolved, hence proposal 2. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute that, and in fact !voted to support proposal #2. It is, IMO, "unbelievably silly" that the list of evidence produced supports any idea of a vendetta or serious violation of WP:WIKISTALKING. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Eggishorn, those last 20 edits are copied from my "notifications" and are meant to show TRM's obsession with me over the last several weeks, justifying an interaction ban. There's apparently no easy way to allow someone access to the diffs, but unless you are accusing me of making them up, I am not sure why it would be necessary, they speak for themselves. You won't find any evidence of me at all following TRM to various different project and talk pages. If you want further evidence, you can see these seven edits made by TRM to his own talk page attributing various evil acts to me and others. These are his own edits with signatures. You can also read his edit summary when he finally removed them blaming me and others for the contents he himself added to his talk page. I think it's quite clear that no content ban on me could have prevented this, while a mutual interaction ban could have. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No, but a content ban on you could have prevented several editors leaving the RD as a result of your behaviour. As acknowledged variously here and at WT:RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No, Medies, I am not accusing you of making anything up. By the same token, this kitchen-sink listing of bare notifications is not evidence of anything except perhaps a hyper-developed sense of victimisation. An impression that is only heightened when you link to statements such as, "...please stop making hollow threats." and "...please let me know when you instigate proceedings" and call these "evil acts." If you mischaracterize the things that I can verify so badly, I have little reason to believe your characterization of any other facet of your interactions with TRM. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose 2 and 3, and presently support 1, because TRM's disruptive sniping which he admits to above must stop. Also, TRM has been critical of the RD regulars since Dec. Friday the thirteenth with disparaging remarks such as this [36]. In addition, I disapprove of any further disruption due to TRM's and Bugs' endless one-upmanship. TRM says he'll start an RfC and although I am completely opposed to banning Bugs and Medeis from the desks, perhaps we could permit temporary limited RfC waivers to the interaction ban, otherwise we may have to do this all over again. On second thought, should TRM agree to eschew interacting with and sniping Bugs and Medies outside of this venue and any RfCs I will strike my support of the interaction ban. -Modocc (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC) I'll add that TRM is presently referring to Bugs and Medies as Statler and Waldorf on his user page [37] because of this comparison during this dispute. Its my understanding that such sniping is inappropriate (or at least not respected as TRM's user page points out) and is a misuse of user pages and it's to be removed with an interaction ban in place. -Modocc (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Just repeating what another concerned editor had said. Are you now suggesting that I can't write down the names of comedy duets as part of some proposed interaction ban? By the way, I've already said I don't want to interact with either editor after this very wasteful thread is finally terminated, so you can "strike [your] support of the interaction ban". What I don't want to see happening is these two editors going back to driving others off the RD. I'm sure you're fully aware of their past deeds in that regard, well documented at the RD archives and here, by many other editors. But so as to avoid offending you, that reference first used by another concerned editor has been removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the removal, that is a start. :-) From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Interaction_ban#Interaction_ban "...editor X is not permitted to: ...make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; ..." [emphasis mine]. Therefore, we did't need to add those names to the interaction ban to enforce a violation. "Not wanting to" is not precisely the same as saying you will do your utmost to avoid it entirely, especially when it comes to colored commentary on their edits to the RD or the ITN and, furthermore, I am not so sure you won't be continuing your sniping while participating in a proper RfC. [and I just took a look at your removal to see what you actually did [38] and since it was in jest, and has the same context as before pertaining to this dispute, it wasn't, unfortunately, a step forwards, but a step backwards, so I've struck my thanks and my offer to strike my support of the interaction ban cause I need to disengage here for I've other things to attend to.] -Modocc (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 4: Standard Discretionary Sanctions shall apply to all reference desks and their talk pages for three months And, those named above must not post jokes or offer extraneous opinions (example) at those pages. There has been a lot of commentary about how TRM has overdone something, but the actual problem is the "unbearable crassness" mentioned in the last link, and that is the problem that ANI should address. At any rate, there is no reason to sanction TRM. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  Tying a metaphorical Sword of Damocles above the head of every editor to the reference desk pages seems an odd remedy for a dispute between three specific editors. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  I'm assuming sensible admins! An occasional joke is fine, but any particular editor should not use those pages to showcase their wit or political stance. As I understand it, a discretionary sanction against an editor requires that first a warning be given, so there should not be a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1 only. "Everyone return to their corners." StuRat (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment regarding "too soon" Some comments above state or allude to it being "too soon" to take such drastic steps as 2&3. To editors with this opinion, I simply ask that you peruse the archives of the RefDesk talk page to see how long this has been going on. Here's one from early 2012, though perhaps the closed thread on Medical Anthropology further down is more instructive. And so on. Matt Deres (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1. The editors involved have, I believe, all indicated their agreement a desire to stop interacting; indeed they are practically begging for it -- but they can't seem to stop snipping at each other until somebody else says so. So let's say so. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC), edited 20:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, not at all. I have voiced opposition as it would prevent me filing an RFC against the other two editors' years of misdemeanours (documented above and at WT:RD) at the Reference Desks. Baseball Bugs also indicated that he would prefer to have the ability to write his own RFC about me. We have, all three, indicated that we will not interact with other, but this ban would prevent vital RFCs from being created. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1,2,3 Medeis and Baseball Bugs were once useful editors, but they've become basically attention seeking trolls. They edit mostly to call attention to themselves. Whenever the topic of conversation is something besides themselves, they do something ridiculous and then proclaim that everyone who doesn't agree is a a "troll sympathizer". I'm less familiar with Rambling Man, but lately he seems to mostly exist to pick fights with Medeis and Baseball Bugs at every opportunity. That is exactly the opposite of how trolls should be handled. (Edit: Looking more closely, I notice that Medeis makes a significant number of apparently useful contributions to the Language desk. So I've struck my support for #2.) APL (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  So many diffs to request I don't even know where to begin. Phrases like "whenever" and "mostly" require evidence in the form of diffs. Labeling them as straight-up trolls without evidence could be considered a personal attack; one that should not be repeated without some diffs of concrete evidence of trolling. There seems to be enough enemies out there: get to work! And any interaction ban imposed here should not preclude RfC filings against each other. Doc talk 01:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1 - Root of the problem seems to be interaction between these three. Start with that first before going for anything punitive.--WaltCip (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1 only. I thought about actually closing this and enacting an interaction ban since I tried to mediate this dispute a couple days ago and have been monitoring it. As can be seen here, BB and TRM continued to snipe at each other on my Talk page even after I closed two ANI threads ([39] and [40]) and asked them to disengage/file an RFC ([41], [42], and [43]). I strongly suspected that an RFC would not be forthcoming from any of the three and I was correct. Medeis was less active in that day's disruption (limited to posting at ANI asking for an interaction band and attempting to close a thread in which their behavior was being examined), but they have been fully amenable to an interaction ban all along, it seems (see their reply to my advice and warning). If the community needs to address the quality of discourse at the Reference Desk, it should be done via RFC. --Laser brain (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Via an RFC to which none of the three us will be able to contribute? That may be fine for them, but their disruption to the RD which has caused multiple editors to leave needs to be addressed. But you want to prevent me from doing that and allow the disruption, well noted here, to continue since nobody else wishes to initiate it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    • An RFC which any other administrator in the world would be fully capable of running without you. Your resistance to "please step back, you're not helping anymore" is noted but not helpful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I agree with GWH here. If this was as big a problem as TRM is making it out to be, another admin would have fixed it by now. At it stands, TRM is digging himself deeper and deeper by not dropping the stick. I am not sure why he still thinks this RfC is a good idea, and I certainly don't understand why he wants to be the one running it. I can tell you right now that if he were to start the RfC, the pervailing opinion would be "TRM shouldn't have started the RfC (emphasis indicating that, while an RfC may be necessary, it should be done more impartially by somebody not named TRM). And it could theoretically end up a helluvalot worse for TRM. pbp 21:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
        • I don't care about theory. I look forward to a "competent" admin starting this RFC, i.e. not some of those who are involved so deeply here who clearly are playing ICANTHEARYOU games with those people complaining about the RD misbehaviour. The evidence is everywhere, including this AN/I report, that the actions of the other two editors have driven people away from the RD. That should be addressed. Look forward to "reading" it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
          • I think many of us can agree that you had a point about the ref desks and certain editors', shall we say, liberties taken. However, this discussion includes sanctions against you, which exist largely due to the tone you've taken thus far. I've said this in previous discussion with you: I see your points, but they've been lost in the noise you've created. Good for you, you've got Bugs and Medeis to this point. I hope you are proud of yourself. But it seems to have been at the cost of your own reputation. You might not care what other people think of you, but it does matter: Wikipedia operates on consensus, and you may find it increasingly hard to get any support with the tone you take. Mingmingla (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
            • I'm afraid that just looks bad on those of you who have all overlooked this degrading behaviour over the past year. Let the bullies win. As for reputation, I'll leave that with those who constructively build the encyclopaedic content here, not those who just lurk around the various chatrooms seeking out further drama or driving editors away. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2 - like many others I see the contributions have gone downhill at the ref desk ....think the ref desk posting is the heart of the problem. -- Moxy (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't have the time, nor the patience, nor the competence to understand everything going on here. But the general principles being followed are wrong. We do not need to have editors keelhauled over a couple of words. We do not need to make our conversations on the refdesk, or any other talk page, free of humor or personal opinion. Even Moses said not to muzzle the ox that treadeth the grain! So far as I understand it, the justification for all this stuff is some notion of "civility", but the pursuit of civility is Wikipedia's version of the War On Drugs. The harder you try to enforce it, the more bitter and divided people will become, and the more the tone of the discussion will be compromised. If the quality of discussion seems to have decreased it is only because there are fewer questions, perhaps because of such bureaucratic predation. The policy and potential for sanction that exists on the Refdesk now is already much too much. Wnt (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1 & 2 for BBB and M - not sure about TRM. BBB and M show up in complaints against them in almost every dispute on the Ref Desk going back more or less since they each joined in there. It's very, very hard indeed to find responses from BBB that are useful to the questioner - and alarmingly easy to find responses that are rude, abusive, wrong, failed attempts as humor or just plain pointless. M is somewhat better at coming up with answers that are useful - but is far from being a "team player" and is prone to ignoring community standards and to being exceedingly hard to work with. Repeated "hatting" and deleting of questions and answers on the desk without prior discussion are M's forte...no matter how many times it's pointed out that this is contrary to our community standards, this behavior continues. Bad though these two are individually, when put together they become intolerable. I don't particularly think of this as a punishment so much as that banning the pair of them from the RD altogether would be a massive improvement to the quality of service that we can provide there. OTOH, TRM seems only to be reacting to BBB & M shinnanigens - and imposing sanctions on him would provide little or no overall benefit if BBB and M were removed from WP:RD. A brief punitive topic ban would be OK by me...but his behaviour is not so consistently bad as to rise to a level where I'd recommend doing more. I have not reviewed and of the three's performance elsewhere in Wikipedia - so I'm not going to make a recommendation either way on proposal #3. SteveBaker (talk) 01:37, 8 January 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 33 Strategies of War

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

---

Please could a protection template be put on the article on The 33 Strategies of War, to limit editing to auto-confirmed users. An IP editor using a variety of IPs keeps adding much the same material over and over again. There have been discussions on the article talk page in April 2008 and late December 2013 about this, but it keeps being re-added.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur with everything Toddy1 has said. There are similar problems, though to a lesser extent on The 48 Laws of Power and other books by the same author. None of them have a NPOV and some editors seem to want to use Wikipedia to promote the works. Edward321 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 5 January 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.

Mount Damavand

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.

---

Horamantarh (talk · contribs) is deleting the relevant elevation information in the article Mount Damavand, see article history. The article offers useful clarification on the discrepancies surrounding the various elevation figures of the mountain. The text is accompanied with the relevant references to back the claims. User Horamantarh is deleting the whole clarification paragraph, and overwrites the elevation figure without the relevant supporting documentation. Additional administrator involvement needed here. - Darwinek (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Article protected, editor warned for edit warring. I also blocked IP 95.38.199.161, in passing. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) This is weird; did he just warn himself? That's a first. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:03, 6 January 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.

Robert Lewandowski article issue

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.

---

Article about Robert Lewandowski is being constantly vandalised regarding transfer rumors. Definitely needs admin attenton. --BiH (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected now by User:Mark Arsten. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:38, 5 January 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.

Toddst1 and 70.53.97.28

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.

---

Toddst1 (diff) for some reason or another, has taken it upon themselves to offer unwanted/unwarrented parenting advice to someone who has a child with Autism when administering a block that is disproportionate to the disruption that has been caused by the anon ip, including no further edits to their talk page.

Furthermore when challenged by the editor who brought up the disruptive behaviour - with regards to the language that was used when administering a further harsher sanction (without any provocation that I can see), the Admin displayed no attempt to justify their language or consider that their advice could have been considered offensive to the parent. As someone with Autistic tendencies I find the language used by the admin at best unsuitable when discussing fellow wikipedians and at worst ablesim. Badanagram (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing remotely inappropriate about anything User:Toddst1 wrote on that page, and especially nothing that rises to the level of "anti autistic bias" that you claim on the IP's talk page. Perhaps you can quote the portion here that you think is problematic because I just don't see it. N^oformation ^Talk 17:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badanagram (talk • contribs) 17:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.53.97.28&oldid=589121655 "Nobody seems to be responsible for the edits from this ip address and the differently-abled child which you apparently cannot manage is terrified by the experience of editing here".

I appreciate the admin community will find no fault with this Badanagram (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That appears to be in response to this and when read in context I don't see anything problematic. And considering that Toddst1 specifically used the term "differently abled," it indicates to me that he was attempting not to act like an abelist by characterizing the person as "disabled." Additionally—and perhaps it's the cynic in me—I just don't buy it; it seems more like case of WP:BROTHER than a legitimately disgruntled parent. None the less, it's irrelevant—having a disability does not give one license to edit WP outside of behavioral norms. N^oformation ^Talk 18:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed your comments from the IP's page. They should go to Toddst1's page rather than be on the IP's page. I agree with Noformation...this is a case of WP:BROTHER and Toddst1's comment was a pretty tongue-in-cheek response to a pretty implausible excuse by the IP who is vandalizing. only (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If I posted them on Toddst1's page he would block me using whatever WP suits him at the time. What good can come on posting such a comment on a blocking-happy admin? Especially when there are thinly veiled people on WP:ANI who rally round such admin behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badanagram (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have read Toddst1's comments. They are to the point, and very tactful. He/she has acted entirely appropriately, given the circumstances. There is no need for editors commenting on this complaint to cast aspersions on the veracity of the parent's claim about his/her son.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Toddy1 about Toddst1's actions—the block was appropriate, due to the disruption that the editor was causing. Epicgenius (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am glad that users with names not dissimilar to the blocking admin agree. *Awaits polemic why this isn't important* Badanagram (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see why you have to make such comments in bad faith. Epicgenius (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The simple answer would be that Wikipedia is not here to provide the support for people with special needs. There are in fact quite a number of autistic contributors on Wikipedia and they understand that they will be treated no differently to editors who do not have autism. It's one thing to be considerate of those who have special requirements but one must keep in mind that singling them out for special treatment is a form of condescending discrimination in itself. Blackmane (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well said.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur. NE Ent 19:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In WP:NOTTHERAPY there is a sentence "It is never appropriate to use the phrase "Wikipedia is not therapy" to imply that editors with mental disorders should be banned from Wikipedia because of their disabilities.". This, along with discussing patiently have not happened.

The excuses about 'tongue-in-cheek?' I find astounding that admins think that it is appropriate to make tongue in cheek comments to a user if there is a hint of autistic behaviour who would respond negatively to it.

I know that it is up to the admins whether to follow the letter of policy WP:WHATEVER (when defending themselves and it backs up their positions) rather than the spirit of WP:WHATEVER (when it doesn't suit them). I guess the admins and their puppets have chosen the former rather than the latter today. Give yourselves a pat on the back and bray over your 'win' Badanagram (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No patting is being done at all. The actions of Toddst1 are completely appropriate considering how children's show articles are one of the most regular test/vandalism targets and how we have several users community banned for using their disorder (or falsifying one) as a carte blanche to vandalize further. We have to be careful not to offend anyone, but not at the cost of damage to articles. Nate • (chatter) 23:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

For some reason I don't see it. The admin named above decided to impose a long-term block and silence the talk page discussion. The user doesn't appear to be vandalising pages (although I accept that copy-pasting pages to the talk isn't appropriate either). If you read the comments in conjunction with the edits, do you actually believe the user is deliberately vandalising Wikipedia and using a developmental disorder as an excuse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badanagram (talk • contribs) 23:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do; the IP was disrupting the talk page and a block was placed to avert further damage. That's standard operating procedure, and the user received plenty of warnings about it before the block was applied. Also, this edit asking for a block of Dianna suggests that the user under the 'mother' guise has been around enough to use that as a chilling threat; a new user (or one who doesn't know our procedures) wouldn't rashly ask for a block that quick. Nate • (chatter) 00:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The 'mother' guise is quick to ask for a block of someone who is easily identifiable as an admin 'has been around enough to use that as a chilling threat' Are you sure of this? Badanagram (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@Badanagram: If the parents don't want to keep the kid off of Wikipedia, there's not really anything Wikipedia can do. By the way, Special:EmailUser doesn't work for anons, unlike what you said on the talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I found the comment extremely offensive, especially considering that we should be focusing on the content and not the personal problems of the individual. I don't blame the mother of this child for reporting Toddst1. And all this from an admin who should know better. I think that Toddst1 could have chosen his words better.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to make it clear. I am not the mother of this IP user. I am a male and would have to have fathered such a child at 15 if the users talk page is to be believed. I am just concerned how admins treat people on the autistic spectrum - especially the admins above. If there is any doubt as to whether a contributor is on the spectrum then perhaps care should be exercised instead of trying to vindicate the admin. I guess the same group of people toss motor scooter users with Hypermobility/ehlers-danlos out of their chairs when "It's obvious they can walk, why should they be treated any different" Badanagram (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that the e-mail function doesn't work for anon IP's. I was hoping to open up a channel outside of wikipedia for the user to discuss concerns but I understand that it is the wishes of the community that this should not happen. I am forever grateful to the admins for their continued patience and 'acceptance' of those within the autistic spectrum. Badanagram (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this function is, according to WP:EMAIL, a safety feature. "Emailing users through Wikipedia is a privacy feature that protects your email address from spam." Epicgenius (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if we were to accept that the copy paste was not vandalism and just a mistake, it is certainly disruptive. That alone would be ground for a block, autism or no. Noone "wins" or "loses", by allowing disruption only WP loses. Should you be interested to see the levels of vandalism arising from a single user, I recommend some reading in WP:LOBU and look for Bambifan101.

The other thing could be, and very likely is, that the editor behind the IP is not actually autistic but a mere troll out to get a rise. Badanagram, accusing everyone here of rallying behind the admins is not going to further your argument. As for your quote from WP:NOTTHERAPY, the IP was not blocked based on this. The IP was blocked for vandalism, which on the surface that is the case. At the very least, the block should be for disruption. Blackmane (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

What kind of deliberate troll goes around copy/pasting articles? Why is the talk page being suppressed? Ostriches is my guess Badanagram (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

MascotGuy would be a better example, no? Epicgenius (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually none of the above are better examples because you are simply quoting extreme cases to justify extreme actions on a single user. Badanagram (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

After double checking, the block was for disruption, not vandalism so I've struck that bit. And actually, yes MascotGuy would be an ideal example, I'd forgotten about him since he wasn't as high profile as Bambifan101. @Badanagram:, this link would be of interest to you. In summary, MascotGuy (a nickname coined by the community) is an autistic person who was community banned not for his autism, but for the incredible amount of disruption he caused, details are in that link. Blackmane (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Largely irrelevant. IP user not engaged in long term vandalism. Block inappropriate. Education appropriate, Star trek style sentences. Badanagram (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

At this point, rather than continue this discussion which is breaking the world land speed record attempt at going nowhere, it's as good a time as any to wrap it up. As far as I can see, we'll have to agree to disagree that Toddst1 spoke inappropriately when blocking the IP. Blackmane (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. Toddst1 (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, I think the block was appropriate given the disruption that the IP address was causing. Obviously it's a difficult situation because we want to be welcoming to people with all sorts of disabilities and are generally willing to make reasonable adjustments, but when the disability can't be reasonably accommodated, as seems to be the case here, there is a real problem. That said, I think Toddst1 was reasonably tactful until this comment which I think was a bit "off" and certainly unnecessary; I hope he'll choose his words a bit more carefully next time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC).

Yeah close the discussion. An IP with relatively low-level disruption in the great scheme of things with activity that can be explained by a condition definitely deserves a 6 month block on their talk page. I keep forgetting what century we are in, hide them awaaaaaaay!!!!! Badanagram (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Now THAT was offensive. Ascribing such a motive where it's quite clear and obvious that no such motive existed is disgusting. It doesn't matter if an editor is drunk, autistic, or has Parkinsons ... every editor is responsible when they click "save", and if their edits do not conform, then unfortunately we take steps to prevent disruption. Toddst1's comment was a CONFIRMATION of "message received" from what appeared to be a parent. There's nothing nefarious, and certainly nothing suggesting we look austistics in a box and throw away the key. Give your head a shake. ES&L 09:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I retract my comment on the basis that it was tongue in cheek. Seriously, can we archive this now? Badanagram (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

So what exactly here requires administrator intervention? What would Badanagram have the community do with respect to Toddst1? I don't see Toddst1's block as either an abuse of discretion or an unreasonable interpretation of blocking standards, and so it is entitled to deference. In short, I move to close and archive this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

At best a removal of the talk page block, which in my opinion is just an attempt to 'silence the afflicted' but I cannot see that happening any time soon, so yeah close/archive/immortalise etc. Badanagram (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

While I could agree with that and probably wouldn't have issued the talk page block, I'm comfortable with leaving discretion to the blocking admin for now. As to the length of the block/talk page restriction, I would note that the whois info indicates that it's a static IP. Therefore, it's fairly unlikely that the individual using that address will change anytime soon, so the risk of collateral damage is low. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:14, 5 January 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.

Addition of second RfC to Talk:Pamela Geller

On Talk:Pamela Geller, an RfC was recently begun, and an editor then added a second RfC on the same topic. Whether intentional or not, the outcome is likely to be that there is no conclusive result, and some editors might see only the second RfC. I'd like to suggest that an admin speedy-close the second RfC so that the first can proceed in the normal way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• The first RfC was poorly constructed and should be the one that is speedy-closed. Several editors have voiced opinions along that line: [44][45][46]
• Even if the first RfC is allowed to proceed, the results of the second one will not be inconclusive, because the first RfC's originator insists that it pertains only to his own edits,[47] [48] while the second deals with content across the entire scope of the article.[49] Roccodrift (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

How about I close both RFCs and all of you come to an agreement on a neutral wording for the RFC before you open a third one? I'm only half joking (I know that closing both will likely achieve nothing useful except lots of people yelling at me). More seriously, in such an obvious contentious case as this, is it too much to ask that you agree on the wording of an RFC before it's opened?

Edit: As for the mess you're already in, if you can't agree to condense them in to one RFC and it doesn't sound like you will, I can only suggest both be kept open, with it being made clear in each RFC that there is a seperate related RFC on going and the closing admin can sort out the mess of how to reconcile the 2 (sorry closing admin).

Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic sidebar
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see no reason to object to "has been described as 'right wing'" with sources, provided that her "non-right-wing views" be also included per WP:NPOV. It is not easy to reconcile calling a pro-LGBT, pro-choice person as "right wing" and especially not using that label in Wikipedia's voice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC) A quite bizarre RfC about a description of a person who calls her political enemies "leftists", is too extreme for CPAC and admits to sharing the ideals of the far-right EDL? I'm just off to 6 (number) to start an RfC about whether it can be described as equivalent to two multiplied by three. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC) That's claimed by some mathematicians, but I can give you a number of sources that say it is actually half of twelve. AFAICT, all other numbers that are half of something are not equivalent to two multiplied by three, so your assertion seems questionable at the least. Formerip (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Then how does your "proof" comport with her being pro-LGT and pro-choice? She appears to hold a bunch of non-right-wing views. And I suspect that "sharing the ideals" is an overstatement -- it is like saying a person who liked the Autobahn project in the 30s was a closet Nazi <g>. Agreement on some issues is not the same as agreement on all issues. Collect (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Is the American right monolithic on LGBT issues? The UK right isn't - it was Conservative PM David Cameron who pushed through the same-sex marriage legislation in 2013. NebY (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC) It seems pretty simple: if the sources predominantly call her right-wing, then she gets called that. Coretheapple (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC) It's not simple. Besides, where those words are placed is pretty important as well: I oppose using them in the opening sentence of the lead, since that amounts to essentializing a political position ascribed to her by others, reliably or not. Why would you think that such matters would be simple? Why would such a categorical qualification be necessary in the first place? Can't our readers do without such labels, or do you think they are too dumb to succeed in the world without them? Drmies (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC) What gives you the idea I think "right wing" should be in the lead? Coretheapple (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I didn't say you thought that. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC) So you're saying that if the sources predominently call her right-wing, we don't use the term "right wing" anywhere in the article? Coretheapple (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC) They could probably do without knowing her name. But the convention is that out articles should focus on the most important information about their subject. It seems like if you did a Wordle for her "right wing" would show up in a fairly large font. Formerip (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Isn't it part of the problem here that "right-wing" and "left-wing" are considered to be pejorative terms by many people? Are there expressions that can be used instead, which aren't WP:WEASELy but get the point across, like "ultra-conservative" or "very liberal"? And what about those who have different views in different spheres of life, such as those who are socially liberal but economically conservative, or Log Cabin Republicans? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is not the appropriate forum to discuss article content. This report was started due to the initiation of a second RfC on the article Talk page, and discussion should be limited to that issue. Roccodrift (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

User:CEngelbrecht making false accusations of 'vandalism' and sockpuppetry.

See [50] where he accuses User:Fama Clamosa of 'vandalism - and then reports it at WP:AIV [51]. Given that the accusation was clearly false (as Mark Arsten states at WP:AIV), I restored Fama Clamosa's edits - at which point CEngelbrecht accused me of "edit-warring using alternate user accounts". [52] Given that CEngelbrecht is a SPA with previous blocks for "edit warring and disruption", and "persistant block evasion", and that CEngelbrecht has a history of accusing those he disagrees with of sockpuppetry, entirely without evidence (see e.g. [53]), I think that an indefinite block is probably the appropriate course of action here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If I may, what I see your actions doing for an extended period, is blatant censorship against the topic in question. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia of human knowledge, and you can't simply censor all illustrations away just because of personal sociology-driven distaste. Carving away any and all illustrations from the entire article wouldn't be done on a page about the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot or the Bermuda Triangle, if this divisive hypothesis was in some way comparable. If you win on this one, you'd only be pushed to further decapitate the article, because you just don't want readers to understand what it's actually about.

Unfortunately, I find that hecklers against this idea are often more versed in the well-intended standards of something like Wikipedia, and more willing to abuse them, aparently. If I'm being penalized again simply for pursuing proper informing of a complex and divisive topic, then Wikipedia is completely pointless. Then the bullies rule here, and you'd just as soon be overrun by creationists.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on today's reverts on the article talk page from any of you. Perhaps start there before coming to the admin boards? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

False (and patently ridiculous) accusations of sockpuppetry have little to do with article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't help that User:Fama Clamosa tossed a uw-fringe4 last warning at CEngelbrecht for what seems to be a content dispute. But I agree, CEngelbrecht should retract that accusation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

All I see is that two user accounts alternate through edit warring. Quite convenient to avoid getting penalized. What I also see is those two users censoring this article continously through the months. 'Cause it seems insulting to them, that it can't be both factual and neutral, while confirming their personal custom thinking, that the idea in question "of course" is completely ridiculous. Therefore he/they are waiting for any chance to pick the article to pieces under any and all false pretenses. There was no reason to remove all imagery from that article, other than censorship of the type, that creationists conduct on articles of evolution. 'Cause he/they don't want to be wrong in their ill-informed assumptions.

Am I wrong? Are you not the same? "Fama", "Andy", who are you? Who are you guys?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Posting outright lies here isn't going to do your case much good - the article history is there for everyone to see. Prior to today's revert of your improper 'vandalism' accusation, [54] I made one revert on January 2nd - of an edit which removed a word from a sentence [55], and prior to that I've not edited the article since May of last year - which would make it rather difficult for me to be 'censoring' anything. And no, I'm not Fama Clamosa - as a sockpuppet investigation would of course confirm, though I note that the last time you posted such accusations, you failed to actually do as suggested, and ask for an investigation. But of course you won't do that, as you know darn well that your ridiculous accusations of sockpuppetry are based on nothing but your own fertile imagination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know how to report such an incident then, it's a jungle of accidentally clicking into the right page (for me, anyway). If you are indeed two different people, I'm prepared to apologize. But I have to say, I've noticed that this particular topic brings out the worst in the opposition, not the support. It's the naysayers (here and in general), that are willing to abuse any and all well-intended systems to halt proper information about this hypothesis (so why not multiple accounts to over represent personal distaste?), and prepared to distort any and all presentation, e.g. claiming that the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis somehow argues for the existence of mermaids (which it doesn't, and Animal Planet doesn't exactly help on that one). What I see here and elsewhere is that this hypothesis gets good olfashioned persecuted, like Galileo got persecuted. Not for being blatantly wrong, but for being not blatantly wrong. It seems that a range of people have a psychological need to look up the article and get confirmed their custom thinking, that it has no grounds what so ever, and a balanced non-POV presentation just can't support that. So in some odd form of panic, these types simply resort to distortion and censorship, as if it were the Catholic church towards Copernicus and Galileo. For years now, I've observed the article in question being hacked to pieces again and again, because it seems an insult to a range of personalities, that it should dare to actually list what the hubbub is about. Which I have to say reminds me of how creationists are prepared to sabotage efforts to inform people about the concepts in evolution (here and otherwise). So yes, I get a tad paranoid, and I think I have proper cause to be so. Something is terribly wrong about this idea, and it ain't the idea. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There's allowed to be more than one other person than you interested in the article and I'm pretty certain they are different people. I wish they had discussed the removal of all the images since I'd been discussing the removal of one of them on the talk page but neither you nor they turned up. Dmcq (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Right. I didn't have anything to add in that argument, so I didn't post anything. And I wasn't the one smash cutting all pictures from the article due to negative bias, even the ones illustrating con-arguments in the debate. (But pictures say too many thousand words on this one, don't they?)--CEngelbrecht (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Engelbrecht has been pushing a POV on AAH for as long as I can remember. Googling on Aquatic ape hypothesis Engelbrecht clearly indicates that Wikipedia is neither the beginning nor the end of it. A single look at the talk page archives is more than enough to see who the tendentious "censor" is. AAH is fringe and should be described as such, nothing more nothing less. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and you've been pushing your negative POV just as much for just as long, so what's the difference? And if you note my edits, I have made every effort to present the counter-argumentation on equal grounds (which is very scarse and mostly humbug). Including the two images of red deer and a horse, which you also deleted without prior debate. Which of you and me are best capable of disregarding any personal opinions for the good of a balanced encyclopedic entry?

You're pointing out my activity on this topic, as if that should somehow weaken my case. My activity means, that I'm well-informed about the many facets of this complex AAH-debate (or lack of it many times). I'm in a perfect position to add valid information to the article, having studied the topic for upwards of two decades now. After all that time, I have to say, that this idea of humans being ancient beach apes doesn't strike me the least bit unreasonable (when you read the damn sources, and not just watch Animal Planet!). But by pointing this out, you'd might as well say, "Can you all hear? He acknowledges, that he is a heretic. He refuses to reject this, which we all know is wrong, wrong, wrong. I rest my case." Have we really not evolved any since Copernicus? --CEngelbrecht (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your comparisons with Galileo and Copernicus, I've seen exactly the same comparisons made by everyone from proponents of magic teapots operating by 'cold fusion' to snake-oil salesmen promoting the drinking of industrial-strength bleach as a cure for AIDS and malaria. And yes, they complain about 'censorship' too. It really proves nothing, beyond the lack of originality of the argument. And as for whether "ancient beach apes" are 'reasonable' or not, your argument is with scientific consensus, not Wikipedia. We reflect that consensus. Per policy. We aren't going to change the policy - and accordingly you might make better use of your time tackling the consensus. In scientific journals, where science is conducted, rather than on the pages of an online encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

And therefore imagery doesn't belong in that particular article?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

comment It appears as if the additional images on the article discussed are a positive contribution to said article. I agree with NeilN that there is a missing talk to resolve this issue.Prokaryotes (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree, most of the images are completely facile and pointless. Do we really need

• a picture of a horse to illustrate a very minor point that horses sweat?
• a picture of someone standing up to illustrate "bipedalism"?
• a picture of someone swimming to illustrate that "humans don't have fur"?
• a picture of a woman in the shower to illustate that humans bathe?

(Add:) Duh, yeah. As much as we need pictures of white and black peppered moths in the article on evolution.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Of course we don't. Unless we've got a lot of readers that aren't clear on what a horse is, or what bathing is. Images should only be used where they are needed to get a point over that can't be made in text (or to make one clearer to the reader). They shouldn't just be used for decoration. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, of course. Arbitrary argumentation, dude. On the article's talk page, one user argues the quite opposite, that a generalized image of the various hypothesis arguments is unnecessary, because the listed points are only partially covered in the body text. Are pictures supposed to illustrate something key from the body text, or something not represented in it? I hear both, all of a sudden. Are you sure, we're talking about use of illustrations here?

The horse and the red deer were included to represent the counterargumentation to AAH, and that horses sweat and red deer have a descended larynx are the only really good counterarguments presented so far (the rest of the naysaying against AAH is really just angry gorilla-pounding, because a complete amateur in this one rare instance actually made a valid contribution to a complex field). Those two pictures was to appease the opposition and to balance out the con side the best one can in a non-POV presentation. Which aparently didn't work, 'cause my experience is, that all the panic surrounding this particular article is really about people not wishing to see this idea properly illustrated or even described. Because a balanced text can't support most's custom thinking, that AAH is unfounded and nuts, and then they prefer to put their head in the bush and keep on laughing at their own giants. Which is creationist-type psychology.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing pointless images isn't an argument for or against the subject of the article, simply trying to make the article look as encyclopedia-like as possible. Unless you're under the impression that our readers don't know what a horse is. Or a deer. Or bathing. Such triviality actually makes the article look worse, not better. Black Kite (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Pull another one. The image of a showering Homo sapiens specimen is a perfect illustration of what the hypothesis is arguing, just as much as one of a baby swimming, another simian species wading bipedally, our layer of insulating protoblubber underneath our skin's dermis, the shellfish that may have fueled the ancient expansion of our brain, the world map of human population density showing us clustering around river beds and coast lines. And just as much as black and white moths are a perfect illustration of the theory of evolution. Right now you're arguing their removal, too, because they're pointless and make the article ugly, don't they?

But the appearance of an article has never been what this is about. Those images were removed, because the user in question and aparently others were uncomfortable being presented with thousand-words images of an idea, they've been accustomed to laugh at for all the wrong sociological reasons. Reasons which yes, is comparable to the ones that plagued great thinkers like Copernicus and Galileo, and to an extent still plagues Darwin. Even if AAH is wrong, they don't even want it to be presented as the reasonable concept it is. 'Cause the human ape don't want to know what it is or something. And in that, they are no different in psychology than the creationists and ID'ers plaguing the articles on evolution. Give the panicky naysaying bullies another victory on this, and you'll only pave the way for a POV-driven, negatively biased and completely irrelevant article (which it has been hacked down to before) on a key scientific topic of today. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, well, you're entitled to that opinion, though I'll just say that I don't think you grasp the idea of what an encyclopedia article should actually be. (For what it's worth, I said on the article talkpage that the baby and gorilla images were perfectly fine, it was the facile ones that were the problem). Black Kite (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment Someone mentioned above about searching for Engelbrecht and the aquatic ape hypothesis. But are we sure CEngelbrecht is really related to this person? It seems to me that the nonsense with the images particularly when taken together with the claims of censorship arising from their removal as well as the comparisons with Galileo and Copernicus and creationists sound more like a joe job than coming from someone seriously trying to promote the AAH. Of course, this could be normal behaviour, I have no idea. In any case, I haven't looked in to it enough to comment on a block, but I agree claims of vandalism or sockpuppetry which are unsupported need to stop. I recommend CEngelbrecht whoever they are take a read of WP:Vandalism and avoid misusing the term; and file a WP:SPI if they genuine evidence of sockpuppetry. Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me remind everyone that this discussion is not about arguments for and against AAH, or how to use images on that page. The discussion should address and focus on CEngelbrecht's behaviour. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

What is my behavior? The accusation of sock poppetry is hopefully wrong, but I stand by the one of vandalism. 'Cause this stripping of all imagery is typical of the mistreatment of this article. Over these last few years I've seen the article's body text reduced to nothing, where the only focus winded up being "this idea is nuts, go back to sleep". Close to all description of the individual arguments deleted, where it was nothing of an encyclopedic entry. I've seen continous harassment against users adding neutral wordings against this negative bias, again on par with the methods of creationists and ID'ers against evolution describing users. I've seen nothing but a continous pressure for censorship. For some odd pshychological reason, a certain group just don't want this idea to be out in the open. This is the general type of conduct, this fringe idea brings out in not the support, but the opposition. You're absolutely right, this is not about arguments for and against some fringe hypothesis, or how to use images. This is about my response to a type of continous vandalising behavior, that only seeks to restart killing the presentation of a divisive idea.

I see all this as a big threat to scientific thought and the well-intended purpose of Wikipedia. Enough is enough. If AAH is so bloody wrong, a neutral presentation would support that anyway. But that is not good enough, is it? --CEngelbrecht (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

If you agree you have no evidence of sockpuppetry or you do have evidence but it's insufficient for a successful SPI, then refrain from making such accusations without sufficient evidence in the future and we have one thing sorted. But if you continue to call things vandalism which are not vandalism, you should still expect to be blocked whatever you may speak of censorship, psychological reasons, etc. And I have to say, it's no wonder AAH is so poorly thought of if proponents behave like you are behaving, your comments are re-enforcing my concern we may have a joe job here but ultimately it doesn't matter if you are blocked which it looks like you are headed towards. Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered checking the IP's of those two accounts?

And how is stripping all imagery from an article without prior talk page debate, which has been done before by the same users, not vandalism???

So I'm a non-diplomatic supporter of a misperceived and grossly distorted idea. What good is diplomacy? For forty years, an Elaine Morgan presented key arguments in this debate. She died last year at the age of 92 without anthropology granting her the recognition she was entitled to, as one of their own giants. She was always the spitting image of diplomacy, begging these highly educated people to just explain, what the hell was wrong with the idea. And all they did in return, and still do, was spat on her. Simply for being an armchair scientist, that as a rare instance got something right, where they had been wrong. All lost in their own inbread, because she wasn't their clergy. And Wikipedia just trails along. The benign weep, and the wicked laugh. So to hell with diplomacy. It accomplishes nothing. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, but the concept of community - and the rules and policies included in it - were something you agreed to when you signed up to this private website. So, try and find WP:CONSENSUS for your additions, but don't complain when/if you don't get exactly what you want. Choose one's battles wisely. ES&L 18:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That's just a carte blanche invitation for the bullies. What the hell are all those principles and rules of ensuring balanced information behind this site for, if they can be freely ignored, just if a majority of users feels like it? Let's just give the articles on evolution over to the creationists, 'cause they are in majority in the community at large too, aren't they? --CEngelbrecht (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

IP user violating policies and now harassing me

This user is not just engaging in an edit war, but he is now harassing me by following any page I edit to start trouble. He is angry because I discovered numerous WP violations in his editing of the Inland taipan page. The thing is, the diff up there of what the article originally contained was done by User:Jmh649, who is a physician and an administrator here on Wikipedia. But this IP user is taking his anger out on me. My mission when I sign on WP was to expand and improve any venomous species article I can and eventually upgrade them to GA status, so I started with the Black mamba, which after a rigorous review attained GA status. I have given this IP user numerous warnings on all the different IP's he uses to no avail. An admin protectted the Inland taipan page, so now he is angry with me and is on a mission to harass me. I hold two degrees on the subject matter and he seems to be a silly amateur who has the attitude of "my snake is deadlier than yours" as you can see in his edit summaries. I finished with the black mamba article, so now I have nominated the Many-banded krait page for GA status, but it needs a lot of work. I have over 140 technical books and field guides on venomous snake species and access to full texts in online journals.I have worked with venomous snakes for years, so he is also ruining my reputation by following me around trying to discredit me at every turn. I am slowly beginning to lose interest in contributing to Wikipedia due to this user. I have articles that are nominated for GA status that I cannot work on because I am going in ciricles trying to get this person blocked, but nothing is being done. He is of no value here on Wiki, in my opinion. If he can't even contain his anger and and act civily or simple policies, than why should he be allowed to edit here? Something has to be done with this user who keeps using different IP's and is now harassing me only because I discovered his policy violations. Here is a short list of copyright vios I discovered on the Inland taipan page (there are many more):

• Duplicate detector
• Duplicate detector
• Duplicate detector
• Duplicator detector
• Duplicate detector

He, in my humble opinion, has zero value on Wikipedia. He clearly doesn't care about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he's interested in his own POV and will not agree to consensus. This has been a long standing issue with him over the numerous IP's he uses. He is engaging in an edit war (I am not going to do anything about his latest revert) even though I have rollback option. I am going to leave it to you guys. His other IP's, which have all received warnings are: User talk:79.177.163.151, User talk:79.182.111.44, User talk:79.182.49.102, User talk:79.180.177.93, User talk:79.179.166.212. Resolution through discussion means nothing to him, Wikipedia policies and guidelines evidently mean nothing to him either.

Just today he made is edit warring at Snakebite:

1. diff
2. diff

And the problem is, he is blaming me for something I didn't do. User:Jmh649 (Doc James), who is a physician and an administrator, kept the list of 10 most venomous snakes. It wasn't me. But he is taking his anger out on me. I explained to him the reason the one list was kept was because it was more accurate based on scientific findings. But that doesn't matter to him, he reverted it anyways. I chose to do nothing because I need an administrator to take action. One of his edit summaries was "you cannot remove a major source just because you upset your favorite snake (black mamba) isn't on it" (diff). That is a veiled attack on my person, it suggests that I am some amateur who is trying to portray a particular snake that he believes is my favorite. He is projecting his own unsavory characteristic on me. Something must be done or this guy will just keep going. --DendroNaja (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have rolled back Inland taipan to a revision from October 2013 to remove all copyright concerns. The IP will be difficult if not impossible to communicate with, as he is using a series of dynamic IPs. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Further checking shows the IP range is too large to block, so some page protections have been placed on his favourite targets by myself and others. I will watch -- Diannaa (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked Commons admin meatpuppeting to block account(s) here?

I'm just wondering if User:Russavia is still indefinitely blocked here?

In this edit on Commons Russavia says "it appears that you do not understand what being indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia means. I have just had your sock account on that project blocked." I've also noted that Russavia, on his talk page here, asked to have another user blocked. It seems to me that Russavia doesn't "understand what being indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia means."

I'd think the easiest way to let Russavia know that he is not wanted on this project, and that he should not avoid his block, is to remove access to his talkpage here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there's anything wrong with someone (in this case, Russavia) contacting admins on another project (in this case English Wikipedia) to say "Hey, just a heads up...something happened on this other wiki that might be of interest to your wiki." I've done that before. I don't think it's meatpuppetry in any way to let another project know that there is sockpuppetry going on on it. only (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You're not going to find many stronger advocates for "blocked means blocked" than me, but I agree with Only. As long as Russavia is not actually editing here, under any account name or IP, being indef blocked does not mean that he cannot talk to other editors via email or their account on other Wikis, any more than it means that he can't edit elsewhere. If anyone he contacts doesn't want to receive his advice or comments, I assume they're perfectly capable of saying "Please don't contact me again."

The only part of the complaint which is actionable is the use of the talk page. Nominally, a blocked editor should only use their talk page to discuss possible unblocks, so if Russavia is using his for other purposes, then I would agree that talk page access should be revoked. Otherwise, there's nothing else to do here, I don't think. BMK, Grumpy Realist (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually he has been very active at User talk:Russavia since he was blocked (about March), and none of it, as far as I can tell, is about possible unblocks or appeals. His only edit at User:Russavia [56] was also not about a possible unblock. I wouldn't mind a simple suggestion from Russavia to a Wikipedia admin, but what he appears to be doing is bragging that he can have people blocked on Wikipedia "I have just had your sock account on that project (Wikipedia) blocked." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's bragging in the context there; I think he's just infomring the user that he's seeing the user's pattern and he should knock it off (on both English and Commons). only (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Many aspects of the culture at Commons are problematic, but there is nothing wrong in this incident. There was reason to think that a certain user was doing bad things at Wikipedia, and an admin was asked to investigate—that is good (and standard procedure), and the comment was not boasting. It turned out (it is claimed—I haven't looked) that the problem user was a troll performing a joe job, but that was all the more reason to have them indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As much as I think it'll be a cold day in hell before there is ever a consensus to unblock Russavia on this project again, I'm not sure what he's actually supposed to have done wrong here. He was something a bit sus, had an admin look at it here, and confirmed that there was some chicanery going on. Not sure what the problem is supposed to be. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC).

I'm the hell not going to switch off Russavia's talkpage access. Seems to me there is no reason to do so.

Situation 1: we switch off Russavia's talkpage access. Outcome 1: nothing of benefit at all

Situation 2: we don't switch off Russavia's talkpage access. Outcome 2: maybe some "long outstanding NFCC and copyright violations" images night get deleted. A benefit however small is better than no benefit at all

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's just leave the block as is (i.e. don't shut off his talkpage access). It is clear that Russavia is not causing any disruption through his talkpage. Epicgenius (talk)17:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is the word "admin" in the section heading? Grammatically, it's suggesting Russavia is an admin ES&L 11:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've modified the title to be clearer. Blackmane (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - There was a recent ArbCom case regarding this very issue. Being indeffed means that the only reason for the editor to make edits on their Talk page is to request an unblock. Russavia has been directing other editors to make edits and perform tasks for him/her. That is obvious by looking at the Talk page history. I can't see any reason why an admin would not put an immediate stop to this. Right? Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Last year's arbcom were recently asked about this (not with respect to this user, but another one), and basically the answer was that it depends whether what the user is doing on their talkpage is disruptive or not. I don't think making people aware of copyright violations is disruptive. Some advice from participants in that previous discussion was that those who don't like to see what the banned editor is doing on their talkpage, should unwatchlist said talkpage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• The easiest way to let Russavia know that he is not wanted on this project is to enact a community ban. At the time of his block this prospect was raised and consensus was to let it wait a while. That was five months ago. It's now quite clear that he is still causing disruption on the English Wikipedia. This is absolutely and finally enough. Strongly propose community ban. — Scott • talk 12:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you at least provide one diff when requesting the community ban? We should take actions based on evidence, not just our feelings about one editor or another. (In the past the community ban process has been rightly criticized as votes for banning, where decisions were made upon social status rather than objective evidence.) Please show the most egregious misuse(s) of the talkpage that reflect an attempt to sabotage articles or disrupt the creation of articles. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your narrow focus on the user talk page fails to consider the wider facts of the situation. I guess you haven't been following Commons politics, so allow me to bring you up to speed. Recently Russavia's cherished video of a man painting a picture of Jimbo Wales's face with his penis was deleted for being clear harassment as defined by the WMF's amended resolution on media about living people. That video was part of Russavia's long-running campaign of harassment and disruption on this site, for which he is rightfully indefinitely blocked. This campaign is now manifesting itself in new attempts to either disrupt this project or harass the WMF or individual editors (I do not know or care what Russavia's particular goal is). A week ago he used his talk page to attempt to request arbitration proceedings against an administrator; now he is posting about another English Wikipedia admin on a WMF mailing list. Meanwhile on Commons, as Smallbones notes, he's pontificating on "what being indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia means". This project needs to terminate any remaining association that this person has with it forthwith. — Scott • talk 14:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not Russavia's biggest fan, but... would a ban here stop Russavia doing things on Commons or on a WMF mailing list? I suspect that response would be punitive rather than preventive.

If Russavia's talkpage editing is a net negative (including any knock-on effects elsewhere) then I'd happily cut off the talkpage. But have Russavia's talkpage edits been a net negative? I'm not sure that they have. bobrayner (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A ban here wouldn't stop Russavia's activities elsewhere, no. The best we can do is send a clear signal that we as a united community do not wish his interaction with this project to continue. Hopefully that will have a ripple effect through our various linked projects and communities, causing them or their management to take a more robust approach to any actions he takes therein that are aimed at us. — Scott • talk 11:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC

Please don't invent facts or rewrite history. Russavia had no "long-running campaign of harassment" on here and the claims about him harassing Jimbo are dubious at best. The admins at Commons deleted the image because it "had the appearance of harassment", which is not the same as endorsing the claims of harassment. Basically, the decision was that enough people considered it harassment to justify deletion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• (outdent) what does blocked mean? If he's allowed to edit his talk page and get people to proxy edit for him then what's the point? Unblock him. Or enforce the policy the same way for everyone (because everyone here knows perfectly well that if this was someone else they would be told to go fish, have their talk page access restricted, and the people doing his proxy edits would be warned. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Although he is very talented and makes many good contributions in Commons, many of his actions reveal he still maintains grudge against WMF and English Wikipedia community. IMHO, his talk page posts are rather pointy to prove the admins here are not efficient to handle copyright matters. See this example. Here his attempt was to prove "Hay, those people know nothing about copyrights; we need to teach them." That image was initially uploaded here as the editor seems only active here. I had to request at COM:AN to stop it. Take it or not; but I don’t think this game run long. Jee 04:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Abitoby - Obvious sock is obvious

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

---

After getting a final warning [57] for advertising (he's been doing similar edits to other articles) and a customized message [58] for these edits: [59], [60], Abitoby has decided to log out and edit as an IP [61], [62] despite being warned [63], [64] and made his socking obvious [65]. Perhaps because of ownership issues [66] for which he's been warned about before [67]. Can both the IP and registered user be temporarily blocked for edit-warring/advertising/sockpuppetting with a warning that similar behavior will lead to longer blocks? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please make a report at WP:SPI.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've seen obvious socks (no investigation needed, checkuser not appropriate) dealt with promptly here. However if an admin feels a SPI is the way to go, I will open one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:52, 5 January 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.

Requesting strings of text to be added to spam filter

Refer to the edits of Special:Contributions/108.46.116.163 and Special:Contributions/74.72.109.206. 108.* was blocked first for disruptive editing (the mass copypasting of patent nonsense on article talk pages), and later 74.* ended up doing the exact same thing. Both IPs come from the same geographical location, and are spewing some crazy fanatical conservative Christian message from a South Korean church with text varying between 200,000 and 600,000 bytes. Since this has happened before, I predict that this person will hop IPs and do the same thing again in the future; I think bible passages written in Korean should be added to the global spam filter. I really doubt that anyone will be acting in good faith when they're spamming bible passages in Korean on an English-language project. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this is probably fine given the scale of disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

For clarification what are you asking for? I'm not aware that there is any global spam filter, except for the URL blacklist (both the wikimedia one and the local one) which don't sound like they will help here. Are you recommending an edit filter be constructed? That sounds okay in theory. I don't imagine we can block the entire Korean bible, it's too long part and there must be many translations plus even if we could block something that long, choosing an appropriate sensitivity would be difficult. You'd need a much more generic filter which tries to detect such unwelcome additions. I know very little about filter design but I imagine it may be possible since such additions would likely include some common features like frequent mention of god or jesus and other such stuff. The length, possible limited IP ranges and targets for these additions would probably also help (as while people asking questions or responding on Korean would be okay in some places like the embassy, it would generally not be encouraged in article talk pages although we do need to take care as e.g. it would often be necessary when discussing sources in Korean so would likely arise in Korea related articles). Unless the IP is incompetent or has a very specific purpose, I don't think just blocking the current passages would help as I imagine they would move on to some other bible passages (and as I suggested, there is a lot for them to choose from). Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeesh. My initial idea was to put in an edit filter to block contribs that contain greater than 30,000 bytes of nothing but Korean characters, whitespace characters, and punctuation... but looking at this edit, this won't be that simple to detect. How many IPs have been used? If it's more than a few, it's possible that a rangeblock could be constructed. It doesn't look like semi-protection will help given there's neither rhyme nor reason to the articles selected. I also suggest that these be revdeled for now: I can't tell, but from reading the obviously machine-generated translation in the last diff above, it's possible that they're publishing something defamatory. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

They're not all Korean. Some of them have Japanese, Chinese, Russian, and English text. Edits like this in multiple languages, would be easier to detect, but the filter for that would be harder to construct. Epicgenius (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The Japanese, Chinese, Russian, and English are all Google Translated from the original Korean. This is why the English reads like a machine translation. I haven't read the whole thing, but the text is about some guy who is severely ill and underwent treatment, and then drones on and on about the meaning of God's salvation, and then takes entries from the Gospel of Luke. He then gives some Korean dude's New York phone number (the dude's name is Mr. Yung Hoon or something). --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

How is the filter supposed to detect Bible passages written in Korean from other texts written in Korean? Blocking the second half of the book of Isaiah won't be particularly helpful, and anyway macaronic comments should be enabled because sometimes editors need to examine translations in their talk page discussions. We don't particularly need to worry about this guy's edits to mainspace, since they're so huge that they easily got reverted by Cluebot. I'm thinking it best to put in an edit filter to block text that includes a massive number of English and Korean characters to talk pages, or if that's not possible, just to RBI and impose a rangeblock if possible. It's not as if this kind of thing could be called "sneaky vandalism". Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that it's cost-effective to construct an editfilter which will catch future edits (they may change what they post), but which will have a low level of false-positives, but on that point I'd happily defer to people who know more about editfilters than I do.

However, the edits in article-space have been swiftly cleaned up by ClueBot and the rest are easily dealt with by human editors, and the total number of edits isn't particularly large, so this isn't a crisis. If another IP appeared, presumably somebody could block it...? (Of course, semiprotection is no use against an editor who picks a different article each time) bobrayner (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, having thought about it a bit more, I have to agree with Nyttend and Bobrayner; this isn't the sort of vandalism that bots or Hugglers have trouble detecting and reverting. As to the size of the text dumped, I seem to recall a tenet here of not worrying about system resources in that way (I couldn't find a link for this though). While we're stuck with the text on the servers probably forever, it doesn't really fall to us to make those kinds of calls. So what we do from here is treat it like any other set of IPs engaging in random vandalism: revert, block, and ignore (and think about rangeblocks or abuse reports if need be). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This is what the edit filters were made for, though. It's easier to deny the vandal the ability to post this message in the first place than it is to block whole ISPs for a single person's inanity or to have to clean up after shit like this. And the edit filter needs to only identify certain strings in the changed text in order to prevent them from ever adding the text, again. I don't see why you're all afraid of this. Without the edit filters in place there'd be so much more vandalism that requires human or bot resources to clean up after.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I want to report administrator GiantSnowman

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

---

Hi. I was editing an article of a recently deceased person and mainly its impact around the world. As the person in question died today, the reactions are very recent aswell. So I was adding them and everytime I added them some new reaction of a noteworthy person came along. And as so I failed to reference some. At the rate I was editing I was going to add the missing references until the so called admin GiantSnowman came along and started relentlessly reverting everything I was writing. The time I spent writing everything and the time I spent verifying all the sources gone, flushed down the toilet. Of course I told him I knew what I was doing. But he kept reverting. I was trying to add the missing references but nothing. He kept reverting. On and on. I even posted some missing references in his talkpage but to no avail. Then when he realized another user (311dot) thought I should be given a chance, he suddenly stopped harassing me. He then proceeded inviting me to add the references stating he would not be reverting anything else. Don't you think that a person who spends so much time harassing others could at least offer some kind of help? Well, GiantSnowman surely didn't. Furthermore he called me a diva when replying to my question. I asked him where the admin reports were located and refused to do so. Of course I persisted and he eventually gave in. He now plays the victim and pretends he just now realizes he was wrong all the time, even when I told him multiple times that what I was doing was right. I want you to decide if you should revoke his admin status since he has failed what Wikipedia administrators should be doing, help its users and engage them in a constructive way. All the time I've been worrying with this could be time spent in working and better construct the article that caused this. Thank you. Tibullus (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You added unsourced information to a biographical article for a recently deceased person - WP:BLP applies. If you had a reference, why didn't you add the reference before saving? Hack (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article in question is Eusébio‎. Long story short, Tibullus has been editing this WP:BDP, adding unreferenced quotes attributed to WP:BLPs. I removed the unreferenced information, and Tibullus re-added, so I re-removed in line with policy. This went on a few times. At no point did Tibullus ever even attempt to add references for the material they were adding - material that, I would like to remind you, related to one BDP and numerous BLPs. I invited them to add the references before saving the edit, but they never did. And yes I called them a WP:DIVA, but that was for threatening to leave Wikipedia over the matter. WP:BOOMERANG should apply here but I, as ever, welcome the wider view of the community. The full interaction can be found between our respective talk pages. GiantSnowman 17:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You know why I readded them? So I could add the references. Tibullus (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think the fact that you failed to reference your additions to the article (and hence they kept being reverted) reflects badly on GiantSnowman. Perhaps you could have taken his advice and actually referenced them the first time he asked you to. Or the second, or the third, or the fourth.... Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You're saying that because you're an administrator and you have to watch each other's backs eh? I dont know how you work but I had endless tabs linking me to the sourced material. Don't you for a second think that I was a little bit upset when someone deleted everthing I was working on? Didn't it occur to you that I might have wanted the admin in question see that what I was doing was right? Tibullus (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• GS did no wrong. Tibullus, you seriously need to chill out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I would add them, but as I was editing and I clicked save a warning showed up saying there was an edit conflict. Then I checked who it was and everytime it was GiantSnowman reverting my edits. So I could not add the references, because simply the sentences I wanted to add the references were being erased by GiantSnowman. Oh I need to chill? Tell that to the admin in question. He spent so much time annoying and bullying a user who has been here since 2007. Tibullus (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As I advised you multiple times you should have added the references before clicking save. But what you did - numerous times - was revert me to re-add the unreferenced material. Please listen to us, don't be so stubborn, we are trying to help. GiantSnowman 17:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You are trying to help each other that's what you're doing. I think you should have checked my background to see I was a trusted user. But you didn't, did you? I'm not editing that article anymore if that was your goal in the first place. Tibullus (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@Tibullus: Rather than complain about GiantSnowman, you should listen to him and you might become a better editor. JMHamo (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Tell him that. He never listened. He never gave me a chance. You are all biased, that's what you are. I've proven myself here but to you what it matters is a little punny 'admin' tittle to make yourselves reliable and give you the right to treat others like crap. Tibullus (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:BLP explicitly covers recently-dead people. That means that policy says that unreferenced information about such a person is allowed to be, and often should, be removed immediately. Unverified information about living or recently-dead people is a very serious concern because it can affect the real-life reputation of the person of their loved ones. GiantSnowman doesn't appear to have done a fantastic job explaining that to you, so it's understandable that his reverts got your back up, but ultimately policy supports his actions. Going forward, I think the best resolution here is that you, Tibullus, be aware that living and recently-dead people are a special case on Wikipedia where you should pretty much never make a substantive edit without, within that edit or immediately after, providing a reliable source back up that edit. If you're asked to provide a source or if your edits are reverted as unsourced, you need to provide that source at the time of any edit involving that information. That means not two hours later, not twenty minutes later, not in the next edit five minutes later, but at the time of. Sometimes the information isn't hugely contentious, and it might seem silly to have to source it right then and there, but everything posted on Wikipedia articles is live immediately, and to do justice to our readers and our BLP article subjects, verification needs to be paired with the addition.

  At the same time, I'd say that GiantSnowman, if you're going to enforce BDP (or BLP) to someone who doesn't seem to get it, you'll get better results if you take the time to explain the situation to them, explicitly and with something other than three-letter acronyms. Yes, policy supports reverting, and yes, a block can be used against someone violating BLP, but surely it's better to just take the time to explain fully rather than curtly, and thus not have to block?

  In short, this seems to have been a case of two people talking past each other and getting snippy. This could have easily been avoided by user 1 adding sources at the time of the edits, and/or by user 2 spelling out how and why WP:BDP applied. Let's try that in the future, shall we? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, I fully acknowledge now that I should have spent a bit of time explaining why BDP applied here - though I did/do expect a user who has been here since 2007 (as he reminded me numerous times - including at this very thread!) should already have knowledge of that. GiantSnowman 17:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't pretend you're the victim here. Suits you bad. Do you really expect a regular user to be as knownledgeable as an admin in regard to Wikipedia's policy? You're just trying to clean the mess you did, the dirt you did. Yes, I know I should have added them since the very beginning but consider I had like 15 tabs, don't you think I wanted to get some done, and then immediately do the others? Tibullus (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For future encounters of this type I recommend editors be encouraged to use their sandboxes to assemble the content and references, and then copy/paste into the article in one swell foop. NE Ent 21:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Come on NE Ent--no copying and pasting: moving is preferred, to preserve the history. Fo shizzle! Drmies (talk) 02:13, 6 January 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.

Ancient Egyptian race controversy, DNA history of Egypt, Black Egyptian Hypothesis, Population history of Egypt-5 to 6 years of editor proliferation of articles, WP:Ownership and POV pushing

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.

---

Note: this was filed at WP:DRN:

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Black Egyptian Hypothesis,

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Population history of Egypt.

Both cases have been closed; as it says at the top of WP:DRN, we cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. The case can be re-filed (just one DRN case; no need for two) after this ANI report is closed or archived. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Over the past 5-6 years a small cadre of editors have become "brothers of faith" to proliferate multiple articles about nearly identical topics, assert WP:Ownership over these pages and POV push and drive away editors who do not affirm their point of view. This has gone largely unchecked, although the complaints by less experienced editors facing these roadblocks to editors are legion. Their creation of these many articles on the same topic has allowed them to exhaust the time and patience of any editor attempting to include any viewpoint in these articles that they do not agree with. In contrast, miscited or misrepresented content that does support their POV remains unchecked and unaddressed and remains stable in the articles for years, one example of this is: Talk:DNA history of Egypt#How could everyone miss this for so long? which was left intact by this small cadre of editors while constructive edits were thwarted. The talk page of one of these editors, wdford, in fact lays out the tactics used by this small cadre of editors quite explicitly and quite well by these "brothers of the faith."

Who: Editors involved, some in the small cadre of "brothers of faith,"and others who have attempted to oppose it-Dougweller, Aua, wdford,, yalens, dbachmann, eyetruth, ( some who've attempted to oppose:drlewisphd, Dailey78)

What: A small cadre of editors have pushed their POV over the past 5-6 years thwarting any attempts to include material that dimishes their point of view, helped by their proliferation of multiple articles on almost exactly the same topics to exhaust the time and patience of editors, especially inexperienced ones, forced to discuss on four separate talk pages any inclusions of information in these four articles that offends their POV

When:Over the past 5-6 years, from 2008

Where: Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, Black Egyptian Hypothesis/Talk:Black Egyptian Hypothesis, DNA history of Egypt/Talk:DNA history of Egypt, Population history of Egypt/Talk:Population history of Egypt, and probably many more related articles regarding race of ancient Egyptians, but these are the ones I have been active on and am actually aware of

Why: Pushing their POV, confusing and confounding any editors attempting to make changes that offend their point of view, creating ownership of the topic, supporting their "brothers of the faith."

How:As this is done systematically over 5-6 years, many editors who lack the time and patience to deal with multiple talk pages over many years and many many editors are confounded in their attempts to include information that offends their POV. Intimidation tactics for any editors who attempt, like that experienced by me, are legion and do not violate the letter although they violate the spirit of Wikipedia as a collaborative forum.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andajara120000 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

What administrative action do you believe is necessary here? Why have you brought this here and not to a dispute resolution venue? only (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Some investigation of the actions of these cadre of editors and what it has led to. Many, many dispute resolution attempts have been made by multiple editors on these issues of Sub-Saharan affiliations of the Ancient Egyptians as it relates to these different pages-many different studies and many different articles have been involved over the years, the proliferation of articles has occurred in order to mask the clear patterns of which editors specifically have been controlling the content on this topic and how it has been done. The issue is that the pattern and the creation of the "brothers of the faith" has not been clearly scrutinized or identified as of yet. This is a concerted attempt to muzzle other voices by creating a proliferation of articles and violating the spirit but not the rule of wikipedia and it has been extremely, extremely, overwhelmingly effective over the past 5-6 years. I think that is a concern for everyone who sees Wikipedia as a collaborative forum that leads to accuracy and balance in the articles on Wikipedia. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Not commenting on whether admin action would be required, this article by nature (now three years old) is a good start for reviewing the controversy. -Darouet (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You just opened two DRN threads (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Population_history_of_Egypt and Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Black_Egyptian_Hypothesis. You copied and pasted long threads on four talk pages. It seems like you're forum shopping here. (And I just noticed this one too: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Black Egyptian Hypothesis). only (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No those were in regards to the content issues I have identified. This in contrast is in regards to the conduct of these editors identified over the years. Even if my content disputes are completely overruled, I still assert this conduct and its success over the years in violating the spirit of collaboration on Wikipedia is problematic and disturbing on a number of levels and that without some scrutiny this will continue to go on for decades and other editors will face the same exact issues over and over again as previous editors have as well. I have been lucky enough to have the time to follow through on what I have seen and investigated the conduct over the past 5-6 years to draw your attention to it, but future editors may not realize it or have the time to bring it forward. And rest assured, if evidence from the past 5-6 years is considered, it will not stop.Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Andajara120000, how about waiting for DRN results (either one of them, really)? I'm not sure what you want sysops to do, even if the complaint had any basis in legitimacy. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am speaking of this conduct-I am willing to follow whatever procedures is necessary but this chills me to the bone. This whole "brothers of the faith" issue chills me to the core and I would think sooner rather than later. I am more than willing to go through the various DRN processes as many editors have done before as well, but as I indicated I believe this is no ordinary conduct issue, at least in my opinion. I am willing to go through whatever steps are necessary before this is scrutinized, just to have this seen and considered. It is chilling. I believe if left unchecked will continue to be effective for the next 5-6 years, if not decades. This is no ordinary conduct, ordinary cadre of editors, ordinary issue at least the way I have read things from my own investigations and I would like others to make similar investigations as well as I think to keep Wikipedia as a collaborative, safe, welcoming forum for all users who wish to be constructive this kind of conduct must be looked at carefully. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this belongs on WP:RFM or DRN. Epicgenius (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• 6 years of editing by multiple editors is generally too much for this Incident board to handle in a single thread. DRN's have been opened. No editors named have been notified and the allegations are rather vague and without diffs. By all means pursueWP:Dispute resolution before ANI. It is possible you will come to some agreement that way -- it happens. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have notified all of them on their pages-maybe it did not go through? My concern as I have presented it is that I don't think there is any kind of agreement that can be made. At least from the past 5-6 years there seems to be a specific POV of a small cadre of editors, one who has been named a "brother of the faith" and has the tactics listed on his own talk page-wdford. This has been very cleverly thought out, administrator-level issues, common editors are just not equipped to handle this as their overwhelming success over the years shows. These common editors have been overwhelmed by these "brothers of the faith," exhausted, humiliated and intimidated in their efforts as systematically these "brothers of the faith" have overwhelmingly succeeded in their goals. I think some scrutiny of this conduct and I would be more than willing to provide more specific evidence will allow Wikipedia to be a safe, collaborative atmosphere for all editors, not just those who can allay with "brothers of the faith," proliferate multiple articles on the same topic, discuss similar issues on four different talk pages, continue on their concerted efforts for 5-6 years etc. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you realize that the "brothers of faith" thing is a joke from this humorous essay. There is no conspiracy there. only (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not think it is funny at all. Not when the consequences of these 5-6 years of concerted and allied efforts are considered. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Diffs? You will need quite a few of them to prove such a conspiracy. What POV are they pursuing? Again more diffs. What prior dispute resolution? -- more diffs. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay I will do so right now below. I am just happy this is getting some attention and consideration. I will attempt to provide the evidence in an organized and clear manner below. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@Andajara120000: I understand you feel passionately that you would like to correct what you perceive as 5 years of wrong doing on a series of articles but, even if true, it cannot be undone in a few days. You need to proceed one step at a time. In less than 48hrs you have submitted two cases at DRN, one at Mediation and one here at ANI. This is not going to get you anywhere, you need to decide which venue you want to approach. I suggest that you follow through with the Mediation (a content resolution venue) and then build on the result you get there. If the participants refuse to participate in mediation then they will likely not participate in DRN either in which case you might file a report at WP:AN ((a behavioral resolution venue) rather than here at ANI which is for incidents no so much long term problems. In either case (ANI or AN) you are going to need very convincing proof in the form of diffs. Because you have filed for mediation and you have opened a thread here at ANI, both of the cases you opened at DRN have been closed as DRN guidelines prohibit cases in multiple venues. So slow down and good luck,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay thank you. I am willing to take the time to see this through and provide convincing proof and am grateful for your respectful consideration. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what any of this "evidence" is proving. It's just a random list of comments on talk pages and article creations. I see nothing that proves POV pushing or 5-6 years of "thwarting any attempts to include material that dimishes their point of view." Again, you quote the "brothers of faith" thing, but that's just a copy any paste from a humorous essay about "how to win an edit war." only (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm adding to each section the most relevant evidence I can find, there are three categories of evidence-the Article Revision Histories and Article Talk Pages, the Administrative Noticeboards/Dispute Resolution Noticeboards and the User Talk Pages. Regards,Andajara120000 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Collapsed for readability (of ANI)

Evidence from Article Revision Histories and Article Talk Pages Ancient Egyptian race controversy: Ancient Egyptian race controversy Created: 15 August 2008 by Moreschi ("Created page with 'Controversy surrounding the race of ancient Egyptians have been a persistent meme in [[Afrocentrism|A...'") Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy&diff=589270673&oldid=232143867 DNA history of Egypt:DNA history of Egypt Created: 4 February 2013 by Wdford ("created a new article from material in DNA history of Ancient Egypt" Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DNA_history_of_Egypt&diff=589290149&oldid=536543540 Population history of Egypt:Population history of Egypt Created: 15 June 2009 by Dbachmann ("import from Ancient Egyptian race controversy"): Diff:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_history_of_Egypt&diff=589290764&oldid=296502182 Black Egyptian Hypothesis:Black Egyptian Hypothesis Created: 17 October 2012 by Wdford ("created new artcle as a spin-off from Ancient Egyptian race controversy") Diff:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Egyptian_Hypothesis&diff=589287690&oldid=518274123 [DELETED AND REDIRECTED TO DNA HISTORY OF EGYPT on 4 February 2013:DNA History of Ancient Egypt:[[DNA history of Ancient Egypt-https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DNA_history_of_Ancient_Egypt&redirect=no] Created: 18 January 2013 by Wdford ("created a new article to collect and rationalize material on this topic in various other articles." Diff:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DNA_history_of_Ancient_Egypt&diff=539005592&oldid=533667717 Evidence from Dispute Notice Board/Administrator Notice Boards *Aua *Dbachmann *Dougweller FILED BY DOUGWELLER AGAINST SIRSHAWN, INVOLVING WDFORD JUNE 2012 Ancient Egyptian race controversy Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_33#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy Editors involved: Wdford & Dougweller versus SirShawn & GreenUniverse Decision: Unclear, closed Selected Quotes:"." "We have a new editor, SirShawn, who doesn't appear willing to acknowledge this and is not only adding material that is not about the history of the debate, but is arguing the debate in a pov way. I and another editor have tried to discuss this on the talk page but have gotten nowhere. Three editors have reverted him, Wdford then replacing some material of his that is relevant to the article. SirShawn's latest comments have included insults and the statement "Your attempts to revert the edits from back to what they were is nothing more than biased censorship and blatant lies (in the case of the non existent 90% commonality between ancient and modern claim). If you wish to play a game in which you get as many biased people to unwarrantably undo my positive and up to date contributions to this article in an attempt to start an edit war than please believe that I will get twice as many people to support my actions!"" "How do you think we can help? Explain to SirShawn the importance of gaining consensus and presenting material in an NPOV manner. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC) " "Edit warring, and accusing other editors of partisan editing, particularly when they're relying on reliable sources, are disruptive and not conducive to the editing process. Calm down, read review articles and field reviews of the topic, and if you're convinced that the article's topic needs to change from reporting the scholarly controversy, to taking the position of one side in the controversy (as a result of that side's position being accepted in multiple current field reviews), then discuss this with other editors on the Talk: page of the article before editing.' Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)" " One poster (WDford) attempted to say that somehow argue that including these sources were a POV because they were cited "Afrocentric" scholars. When I pretty much debunked that assertion (see the talk page), he nor anyone else responded. As evident by the talk page these users aren't trying to be logical in their decisions. They are emotionally attached to certain ideas, and are simply trying to bully their views into place with a so called "consensus" to be unreasonable. SirShawn (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)" " @ Doug, Well from my POV on attitude is irrelevant as I have another POV. I've attempted to logically discuss this issue of my contributions with you two on the talk page, but in every instance both of you state your opinions and ignore my response. From there with your lack of a response continued to revert my edits using bullying tactics with claims of a 2 to 1 consensus. That shows in unwillingness on you all's part to compromise.SirShawn (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)" *Eyetruth *Wdford' FILED AGAINST WDFORD BY ZARA1709 JULY 2009 Disruptive Editing by Wdford at Ancient Egyptian race controversy Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#Disruptive_editing_by_Wdford_at_Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy Resolution:Article on probation (?) Selected Comments: "Many of you might be aware, recently there were several editors banned from the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy. One of these editors, Wdford, had his ban lifted today. Almost immediately, he started editing the article; As I looked at his edits roughly one hour ago, I objected to them; I was about to explain my objection with more detail on the article talk page, by Wdford has already reverted me and I fear that this is about to escalate into another edit war. It might turn out in the discussion that my objection is unjustified, but in any case, Wdford would have to allow the time for a discussion before he reverts again. Otherwise he is not trying to find a consensus, and I think it is justified to call that disruptive editing. Zara1709 (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" "Zara along with other editors on the article talk page are currently trying to work out some sort direction for this article before proceeding with adding content(which is a wise idea),this is a very contentious and highly controversial subject ,i would suggest a full and indefinate article protect until consensus can be met and before full blown edit wars break out,the article is on probation--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC) "What I've seen is Wdford adding material that does not relate so much to the history of the controversy, which is what the article was meant to be about and even at least some of the still-banned editors seemed to agree on that, but to the controversy itself. This is not promising. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" " Regardless of anything else, the edits by Wdford were very large. Doing such large edits to an article with such a fraught history, without any prior talk page discussion, ought to be grounds for reimposing the article ban. If editors won't make any effort to work cooperatively, they must be kept away from articles like this. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" "First, this is a content dispute and thus not within the remit of ANI. Second, I have a great idea: delete the freaking article and invite all the SPAs who are DEFENDING THE TRUTH! to enjoy the wide Internet beyond Wikipedia. This stupid article has been the subject of approximately one AN/I post per week for ages, and it's beyond tiresome at this point. Alternatively, perhaps an admin with some balls could simply topicban everyone who has edited the article more than once in the last 90 days, instantly ban any brand new accounts that show up to it, and generally remove the utterly stupid editwarring that has been going on here since Tutankhamun was a small child. Let some neutral people work on it without the intense POV-pushing of the regulars. Then again, that would probably be far too logical a response. I mean seriously; the kids can't play well together, so take away their damn toys already. → ROUX ₪ 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) " "Agreed - it's a hideous mess of unsourced statements, maintenance tags, original resource and synthesis. The Liancourt Rocks method of stubbing it to clearly sourceable statements may work, but I'd have to say that Wikipedia wouldn't be any worse off if it didn't exist. At the moment, it's just a time sink for editors who've got better things to do. Black Kite 20:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC") "Ah, so people who continually abuse their editing privileges--note, for example, your topicban--and waste other peoples' time should... be allowed to continue abusing their editing privileges and wasting other peoples' time? I think not. So, two proposals. Draconian? Sure. Ends the disruptive bullshit once and for all? Absolutely, and necessary in a wide number of areas across Wikipedia. → ROUX ₪ 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" " (unindent) There seems to be some confusion amongst recently arrived editors to AErc about what the title of the article means. As Dougweller has already said, it is about the historically recorded debate about the "race" of the Ancient Egyptians and those who have taken part in it. It is not a forum for wikipedian editors to provide fresh material to debate. In addition, there are already plenty of articles on Ancient Egypt and egyptology: this is not one of them. Mathsci (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" " And I find just about everything you do disruptive. So your point is..? This sort of disruption does not end until either one side blinks (not going to happen), or the people pushing POVs are banned. They are unwilling to give any ground--see also the various nationalistic disputes, the recent ArbCom ruling regarding Scientology, etc. NPOV is a foundational issue and is non-negotiable. It's time to recognise that just because anyone can edit, it doesn't mean everyone should. → ROUX ₪ 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" "It is an attempt to do something about these sorts of recurring and insolvable issues. Well, I say insolvable; what I actually mean is that nobody has the gumption to do anything about it because they cling to AGF in the face of all evidence to the contrary that people involved in highly-POV nonsense like this will ever back off, even the smallest amount. The thing is, for people involved in such disputes, the dispute is intensely personal. They are upholding TRUTH, and no amount of argument is going to sway them otherwise. So, treat them like the squalling teenagers that they are, and ground them for the duration. These disputes are a major problem for Wikipedia, and the general unwillingness to deal with them is a result of the AGF-as-suicide-pact mentioned above, the inevitable pileons that result when someone does anything to upset the status quo (and seriously, the status quo is broken; innovate or die), or fear of being subjected to the bizarre attitude of ArbCom as recently exemplified by its desysopping of FutPerf who made some intemperate remarks after ages of being one of the very few administrators with the interest and expertise to deal with a specific locus of nationalistic dispute, from which this AERC dispute is semantically indistinguishable. Believe it or not, this proposal--extreme though it may be--comes after much thought about how to handle such disputes. Whatever else you may think, it is apparent that our current method of handling these issues is laughably insufficient, and pretty much anything would be an improvement. What it boils down to is a simple question: are we attempting to build a relatively reliable encyclopedia here, or not? If the answer is yes, then the only logical action that follows is to terminate (amongst other things that assail the reliability of the project) POV-pushing nonsense with extreme prejudice. If the answer is no, then we're all just wanking anyway and we may as well just transwiki everything to Encyclopedia Dramatica and call it a day. → ROUX ₪ 23:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" FILED AGAINST WDFORD BY ZARA1709 AUGUST 2009:Edit warring at Ancient Egyptian race controversy continued Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive557#Edit_warring_at_Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy_continued Outcome:" Resolved: For now, at least. Full protection imposed on page. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)" Selected quotes: "Anyone remember Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#Disruptive editing by Wdford' at Ancient Egyptian race controversy? That was a little more then a week ago. Yesterday I actually added my first new contribution to the article, the first sentence: "The Controversy surrounding the race of ancient Egyptians involved Eurocentric and Afrocentric considerations in the 19th and 20th Century." I have more than one reference for the term "Eurocentric"; this is provided at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy#Towards an acceptable lead parapgraph (typo sic). However, Wdford, whom you might know from the preceding discussion, vehemently opposed this one sentence, but I still can't figure out what his editorial argument for his opposition is, actually. He is saying that this is an "inappropriate POV statement" diff, but actually all I did was to refer to one of the best non-partisan sources I could find. The statement was (in a slightly different form) previously present in the article and simply flagged with 'citation needed', before Wdford removed all flagged statements from the article. diff. I think that "Eurocentric considerations" need to be mentioned in the lead. Just look at the statement of the historian to whom I referred...In any case, I can't work at the article under these conditions. If this wasn't actually a notable topic, I would have already proposed the article for deletion, but the topic is notable and I could write an article - just not under these conditions. So could an admin please take a good look a the issue? 'Zara1709 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC) ""This article is plagued by editors with fringe POV who start edit wars on purpose." I couldn't have put it better. That only leaves the question who the editor with the fringe POV is. And it is certainly not me because I don't even have an individual point-of-view. Really, I wouldn't know what that POV should be. All I did was look up what the reliable sources, which I had previously identified, have to say on "Eurocentric", and I came to the conclusion that is is an appropriate term to describe one side of the controversy in the lead paragraph. From what he has written on the talk page, I wouldn't even know that Wdford understands the difference between an editors POV and that, what reliable sources have to say, and I suspect that I could discuss this issue for about a month and Wdford still wouldn't understand. SO it is necessary to speed things up a little. Zara1709 (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)" "I suggest the top 10 contributors to the article and the talkpage be topicbanned for six months. Let non-SPAs do something about this article. Alternatively, delete and salt the nonsense. If nothing else, the name that keeps on coming up here as being non-constructive is Wdford, so a topicban there at the very least would reduce a lot of this ridiculous disruption. → ROUX ₪ 15:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "This is from the December 1996 issue of the Journal of American History: (stable link). If the Organization of American Historians, or at least the board of editors of their journal, doesn't have a problem with describing one side of the controversy as "Eurocentric", why would Wikipedia? The only reason can be that some editors at Wikipedia disregard reliable sources and rather write articles based on their own POVs. Of course, you could simply ban all involved editors, but that wouldn't solve the problem, because sooner or later some more come along. Even deletion wouldn't solve the problem, sooner or later someone is going to recreate an article on the issue, because the topic is, as one historian would put it, the battlefield of a "culture war" in the United States. Zara1709 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)" " "Wdford has already been banned from this article before. His block was commuted here [11]. Now, less than two weeks later, he's at it again. Is there any reason why he shouldn't be rebanned immediately? I'm rather inclined to ban Zara1709, also, since he/she seems to be pretty consistently edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Though looking closer, it appears that at least Zara is trying to include sourced content, not unsourced like Wdford, so perhaps that should be a mitigating factor. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC) " " had retreated from the article roughly 6 months ago; I returned because I perceived an opportunity to fix the article; it appears that I was wrong with that. Previously I have broken 3rr in other controversies, but this was because in both cases statements from reliable sources that I had added were removed without justification from the respective articles. Wdford is trying to pull the same stunt here - removing the view of reliable sources from the article without going into a discussion based on these sources. I have mentioned 3 academic sources so far that describe one side involved in the controversy as "Eurocentric." However, even if I would throw another dozen sources at Wdford, he would still refuse to acknowledge the view of reliable sources. The topic of this article, Ancient Egyptian race controversy, extremely controversial. I actually have found two historians by know who describe it as culture war. I think I can honestly say that I am the only editor at Wikipedia I know who has an overview about this controversy, but there is no reason why I would have to work on the article. Unlike other editors I don't have a special point-of-view that I need to propagate through Wikipedia. I do think that having a good article on the topic would help the Americans find a truce in their cultural war, but that is not enough motivation for me to keep up with this. So unless I get an affirmation that articles on Wikipedia should be based in reliable sources (and not on individual editor's pov), I will simply retreat from the article. For already in the my first comment on my edit I made clear that this sentence was based on a reliable source, and Wdford can't possibly intent to write an article based on reliable sources when he argues against that sentence by calling it a "blatantly Afrocentric opening sentence". diff He should know that the historian I've quoted is not an Afrocentrist; he should at least have stopped to revert when I brought a quote from another historian, Stephen Howe, to whom he later himself referred. As far as reliable sources go, I don't need to put up with this, and I will not. Since it is rather unlikely that there will be another editor who could write a balanced article on the controversy (all you can expect from the other currently involved editors is material on skin color, skull shapes and Y-chromosomes), I would suggest that you propose that article for deletion. Zara1709 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)" NOVEMBER 2009 FILED AGAINST WDFORD BY ZARA1709 BY Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive575 (section Harassment by User:Wdford) Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive575 -- section Harassment by User:Wdford Selected Quotes:: Background (I): It is now almost three years since I've made the first of my altogether 5000+ edits at Wikipedia, and I've learned at lot during these 3 years. So, at the upcoming Friday, at 10 a.m. local time, I will be giving a 30 minute presentation on Wikipedia at my University, for about 20-30 undergraduate students who are studying to become grammar school teachers and are having a session on web 2.0 teaching materials. One part of my presentation will be concerned with editing experience at Wikipedia, any I will give an honest account of my experience. Currently I am considering telling the students this story: Background (II): Some articles at Wikipedia are about highly controversial topics. One of them is the article "Ancient Egyptian race controversy". The controversy is about the question which skin colour the ancient Egyptians had. Why is this topic so controversial? In short: Because some white people think that every person of African heritage who is interested in the topic is promoting [a fringe pseudo-historic 'theory'] Because some black people think that everyone who denies that the ancient Egyptians had a darker skin then people from Europe is a white racist who tries to deny them their heritage. Probably not unsurprisingly, it is almost impossible to write an article on the topic at Wikipedia. After during one of these discussion quite a lot of material was removed from the article, I though: Why not recycle some material - and I added this to the article Great Sphinx of Giza. "First Incident: Yes, there actually is a small debate about the question whether the the Sphinx depicts a black person or not, and why shouldn't this be discussed in the appropriate Wikipedia article? At least until somehow there is an acceptable general article on the topic. Of course, there was some discussion, but considering how controversial the topic is, everything went nicely. Until an editor called Wdford from South Africa joined the debate on the article. I won't bother with recalling the details, however, this resulted in me giving up on the article." "Second Incident: Wdford then did some work at the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy, which I have mentioned previously.' As could be expected, they didn't actually managed to work it out in the discussion there, so at some point, Wdford and more then one other editor were banned from the article. I thought that this was my big chance. I previously had identified four good books on the topic, two by white authors and two by black authors, and I thought that I now had the opportunity to fix the issue. Initially, everything went well, and I was able to get the support of all other involved editors. And then, the ban, that kept Wdford away from the article, was lifted. Wdford almost immediately gave me an confrontation at the article, and after I had notified the adminstrator noticeboards two times and no one had intervened on my behalf, I gave up on that article, too" "Third Incident: I mean, there are many other articles at Wikipedia that could use a good editor. Last month, for example, I noticed an article "colloidal silver".... well except from one unacceptable edit by whom? Wdford, who had not participated at all in the discussion. I asked myself, what he possible might want to to do there. Harass me?... But this ended, when Wdford decided that he wanted to rewrite the lead and to restructure the article. His edits were, honestly, bad. Again, I will not go into the details (you can read the discussion online at Talk:Medical uses of silver yourself, if you want), but there was no way I could agree to his edits. I tried to explain this to him, but after one day of discussion I noticed that it was still impossible to have a discussion with him. The End? How does this story end? I don't know yet. But I think it wouldn't be fair if the first people I told this story to were some students who have never edited Wikipedia. So, I am giving the Wikipedia community, and especially its administrators, a chance to deal with the issue now. I am feeling harassed, as in "wp:harassment", by Wdford. Probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but he is trying to prove that he can write a better article than me, and honestly, he simply can't. He is lacking basic skills necessary for that, like the ability to evaluate sources. But he is also unable to accept criticism in any way, and every time I criticise him, he responds by accusing me of "acting like I own the article" or that like. Under these circumstances, there is no way I'll be able to recall the positive experiences I've had editing Wikipedia on Friday, so I decided to post this thread now, which at least gives this story a (small) chance of a good ending before then. Zara1709 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I can't describe this issue with full diffs, it was already depressing enough to write it this way. And probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but the effect is the same. He is making it impossible for me to edit the article, and he is effectively driving me off Wikipedia. Why would I spent about 6-8 hours fixing the structure of a controversial article when he can come along and simply wreck it up again? And since this is already the third article where there is a problem, this is certainly not a contend issue, but a problem with the editor. An administrator could have fixed the issue a few months ago, if he simply had restored the topic ban against Wdford. An administrator, or any other motivated editor, needs to get down to it, read Wdfords comments and the discussions on the article I've mentioned, and then, if he comes to the same conclusions as I, needs to explain to Wdford that I mustn't continue what effectively is harassment. But if no one is willing to support me here, I am going to take a break from Wikipedia for 6 months, advise a group of 20-30 students not contribute to Wikipedia (writing articles is fun, but the discussions about them often aren't) and this article, medical uses of silver, will likely be again the topic of a few threads at the noticeboards, since Wdfords edit restored similar ambiguities and misquotations like the ones that made the article an ANI case in the first place. Zara1709 (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I did expect some difficulties at the article, and I was prepared to deal with these difficulties. But I did not expect THIS! Honestly, if some editor with whom you had previously difficulties shows up at another issue, on which you have already spent some time, wouldn't you suspect that he his harassing you? An the reason I am writing such great blocks of text is simply. Wdford is avoiding a discussion of the actual content issue, so I have to repeat and explain my view on that again and again. (Just like you have to continue to repeat the mainstream view when you are dealing with a fringe editor.) I received some support from another editor, so probably we can solve the issue at the article - but probably not. If you want to know what problem I have with Wdfords edits, just check out my last post on the article talk page. If Wdford isn't able to identify a fringe source when he sees it, then isn't a good editor, but that alone wouldn't be a problem. But if he is unable to admit that he made a mistake and takes the revert of his edits as a a reason to start a confrontation, (and not as a reason to discuss those edits) then someone needs to get involved and explain him that this attitude is unacceptable. Zara1709 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC) *Yalens Evidence from Editor User Talk Pages *Aua-User talk:Aua "Black Egyptian Hypothesis[edit] I assume you know about WP:3RR. I've reported Daley for breaking it. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)" "It's only been seven years[edit] Hi Aua, I wonder who you think I was? At any rate, as I said in response, I took it as a compliment. Keep the faith, Drmies (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)" "Queen of Sheba[edit] Thank you, i will stop reverting his edits. 'I'm not sure if he is intentionally trying to distract others in talk pages by talking about agenda and conspiracies .. Yousef --يوسف حسين (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)" "*Ah, am not particularly new to WP, even on this account (3 months and 1.2K of contributions), but yes I had 2 previous accounts where I lost the password :(. I did not seek them back, what's the point of doing so?Thanks for the note though (by the way, I have your name on my userpage).Λua∫Wise (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)How about now? Λua∫Wise (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aua/Archive2)' *Dbachmann-User talk:Dbachmann *Dougweller-User talk:Dougweller *Eyetruth-User talk:Eyetruth *Wdford-User talk:Wdford "talk page notes -originally removed by vandals wanting to hide racist tactics heing used[edit] You insert your content, but they remove it. You remove [blank]-ist dogma, they put it back. You have no choice but to perform on them what is called a revert. When other editors continue to remove your content, and you stand tall against them, you are in a revert war. There will certainly be many users of the opposite ideology. Worse still are the "neutrals" (crypto-[blank]-ists in fact, even if they don't know it!). These users have an ideology even more extreme and yet more sinister than your ideological opposites: adherence to that nonsense, WP:NPOV. Those spoil-sports can be a real nuisance, as they can be harder to bait and harder to discredit. On the plus side, they are unlikely to care as much, so doggedness may be all you need here. But don't worry, if you follow a few simple rules, you can prevail in most revert wars and in most editorial conflict, and thus spread the faith to your heart's content." "4.Find brothers-of-the-faith. With proper use of email, instant messenger, talk pages and "project pages", you can overwhelm with numbers. After all, it's all a numbers game, and three brothers alone will can nullify one "expert" in a revert war without performing more than one revert. With the recent advent of blind anti-"edit-warring" ideology in the admin community, he has no chance. If he continues to try to enforce WP:NPOV (even if he is an admin!), you can bust his sorry ass into blockville. You can revert, he must edit-war. He can spend all his wiki-time pouring his little heart and brain into the talk pages, and, as long as you or one of your friends "responds" occassionally, you can watch and laugh knowing your article is safe! 5.If the above doesn't work, you can always create brothers-of-the-faith. This means creating sockpuppets, new usernames which you control. You can create, in theory, as many as you like. If you think this is wrong, then just remember it's merely a small wrong which you are using to overcome a greater wrong! Whenever you need a friend to add extra weight to a discussion, or just that one more revert, your new friend or friends will definitely be there for you. You can even close votes and create your own WP:Consensus from time to time, when the issue is important enough. The downside is that if you do this too often, you'll create suspicion which may lead to a checkuser discovering your holy misdemeanors. The upside on that is that if you are careful and use your new friends conservatively, it will take months, maybe even years, and a lot of work, to find you out. If you are careful enough, perhaps even never. And even if they do, you can start again from scratch!" DRN discussion[edit] Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC) "AE race controversy[edit] Started a discussion at WP:NPOVN, quoted you there but I'll remove that if you wish. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC) " Your edit summaries[edit] Passing along this useful info from DougWeller. Please keep your edit summaries neutral - as they stand you are using them as commentary on editors, authors, etc. This isn't occasional, it seems to be your standard way of using edit summaries. WP:Edit summaries says "Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, which makes collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult" and "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved."Rod (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)" "See Talk:Kingdom of Aksum[edit] Same issues really. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC) " "Black Egyptian Hypothesis[edit] Without counting, you are close to or at 3RR. I've given the other editor the templated statement but I'm assuming you know the ins and outs of WP:3RR. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)" Thank you![edit]Your superior knowledge of the black Egyptian "controversy," as well as your articulation of several important points in the debate, is extraordinary! I have no bone to pick with either side of the debate, but I'm really irked by militant afrocentrism (or any other forms of ultra-nationalism for that matter). I'm humbled by your ability to call BS on many claims made on the talkpage that could've otherwise flown under the radar. Thanks buddy! Λuα (Operibus anteire) 02:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "DNA history of Egypt[edit] These new edits bother me and I've moved them to the talk page, see Talk:DNA history of Egypt#Section on "Recent DNA Studies of Amarna and Ramesses III Lineages" moved here from article. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC) " *Yalens-User talk:Yalens

And for those who are trying to understand this

All of the above has been added here by Andajara120000 who has been to WP:RSN and when they got no satisfaction there took the same issue to WP:NPOV and then to DRN, Mediation and now here. If anyone is still interested, see User talk:Andajara120000#Deleted some material on DNA, please do not restore without showing how sources back the claims where I've asked this editor to show how some sources the editor added back the claims made, as I and another editor simply can't find them. The response was "My time and patience is not going to be exhausted jumping around four nearly identical articles all sput out by you or these cadre of editors - The talk page of one of these editors, wdford, in fact lays out the tactics used by this small cadre of editors quite explicitly and quite well by these "brothers of the faith." -I will attempt to engage you all in four separate talk page discussions on four nearly identical articles created all by you or members of this cadre of editors for exactly the purpose of exhausting editors." - In other words, simply an attack. In fact what I'd done is try to centralise the discussion of this editor's sources at one page, Talk:DNA history of Egypt although there is a 2nd relevant discussion elsewhere. This editor has made it clear that they understand that these pages are under ArbCom sanctions but I don't think that they believe that their editing could possibly be seen as disruptive. It's everyone else who is at fault. Dougweller (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

And none of us have been notified. Dougweller (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm completely wrong about that, I don't know how I missed it. Self-trouting.Now to bed. Dougweller (talk) 22:27, 5 January 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:VVVladimir breach of decorum in wikipedia

VVVladimir insults another editor (Bobrayner), by calling his actions "paranoid stupidity". Later, he reiterates his arrogance and insult by adding some more, and calling nonsense other editors' arguments. Note that both edits relate to move requests for two cities in Kosovo, and the discussion has been ongoing for a month, so, this is a reflection of how difficult the decision of the closing administrator can be. VVVladimir breaches the decorum of wikipedia with his verbal abuse and should not be allowed to do that. --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The best solution would be for an uninvolved administrator to close those two requested moves. I can understand why any admin would shy away from lengthy back-and-forth Balkan controversy, but the longer the RMs are open, the more drama accumulates. VVVladimir's comments are inappropriate, and VVVladimir appears to have been canvassed to those debates anyway, but I don't want vengeance; I want the drama to end. bobrayner (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I didn't see any kind of insult in the second diff the OP provided, but I did warn VVVladimir after the first diff. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am glad that Bobrayner has a thick skin and has not taken offense. A warning might be a good idea to get VVVladimir be more polite. Thanks for your quick intervention. --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't the complaint commit the offense it complains about: "Later he reiterates his arrogance..." Howunusual (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you might be mistaking "arrogance" for "ignorance". Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 03:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on Darian Calendar

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 has been vandalizing the article Darian Calendar and must be stopped immediately. I already warned him, but he is not cooperating. Leoesb1032 (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No edits from the IP after your warning, which preceded this thread by a mere three minutes. Seems a little early to come to ANI. Huon (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I just reverted it a couple of times and I was getting tired of it going on and on.Leoesb1032 (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• The IP [177.11.84.2] has blanked 6 sections from article without explaining why. The sections, Year length and intercalation, Epoch, Nomenclature, Martiana Calendar, Notes and References were removed without any discussion & without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Reverted, his content removal edits since the edit did not appear constructive to me. - Ninney (talk) 02:25, 6 January 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.

---

GetCrucial11735 (talk · contribs) made legal thread on edit. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Second threat here: 1. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely egregious legal threat. Admins are asleep right now... Doc talk 06:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw a few awake, but not sure if they check this board frequently. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

First admin that does their duty on this one gets a cookie. Any admin that can say this user should not be immediately blocked for legal threats should hand in their badge. Doc talk 06:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And a third one: 3. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Instead of spamming the users talk page with templates, you should investigate their edits and think "Why are they so mad? Hmm?". -- John Reaves 06:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I did. They're mad about the content of the page. I gave a COI template and a content removal template and promptly reported the legal threat here. I would do it again. I looked at the sources and they confirmed what the text said. I tried to see if the sources were mentioned on the RS discussion page too. What more would you like me to do? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't do legal threats here, no matter how mad we get. If one makes them, they get blocked either until they retract them or finish their litigation (per WP:NLT). User is properly indeffed right now. Doc talk 06:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The user was trying to remove legitimately bad material from an article. Material that violated policies of actual importance. My point is that the focus should be on the content, not the user. There seems to be no concern for that bit commonsense here. -- John Reaves 06:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I and some others just cleaned up some of the cites in the article. There were some WP:BLP problems there, and some edit warring. The info now seems to be cited to reliable sources. Some of the material objected to was from marginal gossip blogs. Please check that all negative info is properly cited. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with the two John's here. Yes GetCrucial handled their complain very poorly but they appear to have had a legitimate point about much of what they were objecting to. I would note in particularly that the problem mentioned in [68] does seem to be correct, as neither ref mentions about it being his hometown and the location given by the refs, and by our article now, is what GetCrucial said. Blocking the editor may be fine, but it's often more important to deal with the problem that causes the legal threats to arise. In one case we're removing WP:BLP violating material that may be harming a living individual. In the other case, we're simply stopping someone who in a case like this, realisticly isn't really causing much intimidation or ill feeling, except making people reluctant to help them, and will often disappear if we resolve their issues (some people who make legal threats actually have no legitimate complaint, but we can't know that without investigating). And the very least, unless you've investigated and confirmed there's nothing behind that editors complaint, open a [{WP:BLP/N]] concurrently with any request for a block. Nil Einne (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If you make a legal threat on Wikipedia, you have two choices. This is a "bright line" thing. There's no wondering about why the threat was made. Retract the threat, or take the WMF to court and stay blocked until it is resolved through legal channels. Is this really something that needs to be further explained? Doc talk 06:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, because several people here do not see policy as being sufficient justification for being an insufferable prick to a guy who's simply upset about being libeled on one of the most trafficked websites on the internet. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Tough crap if someone gets "libeled" here. It happens every day, all the time, to articles of people far more notable than this guy. It gets dealt with. If it isn't dealt with to the satisfaction of the article subject, they still have to abide by NLT. Doc talk 07:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This addition of completely unsourced material this edit to a BLP being one of them? There's always the block appeal. Doc talk 06:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Done by legoktm before I got there Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(Many many ECs) Let's break down the edits. First GetCrucial tried to remove a bunch on info [69]. The first sentence was nominally sourced. But the source [70], doesn't say anything like what our article said. It's very gossip like and alleges the subject was caught stealing but at a different location from what refer to. It also claims the subject has a penchant for theft, and links to another source, but the other source appears dead. From the URL, it sounds like this source is referring to the alleged theft at the location cited in our article.

But this still means our source doesn't mention the alleged theft location we refer to in our article (well unless you count the fact the location is in the URL) and it definitely does not claim he admitted to anything. The source cited by our source well not only is it dead, but I can't find it at TWBM [71], so who knows whether it really supported the claim he admitted to anything, and it doesn't sound like a particularly good source.

The next sentence actually refers to what our first source is talking about but considering the highly gossipy nature of the source, I'm not sure it's a good enough source for anything, and I definitely don't think we can use it to present the claim the subject was caught as factual.

The third sentence relates to what I refer to above. The sources don't seem that bad, but as I said above, neither of them refer to the place being his hometown. According to GetCrucial, the place is not him hometown and I've seen nothing to dispute that so although the important part may be right, the sentence is still wrong. Of course whether we should mention the arrest even if it's not disputed may not be so clear cut.

So we have here two sentences which probably should have been removed based on the sourcing presented which is what GetCrucial11735 did, and a third one which perhaps should have been kept but at a minimum needed to be reworded. So GetCrucial11735 was at least 2/3 with their first 2 edits.

After trying that twice and being reverted, GetCrucial tried it different. [72]. They added something about Gossip Girl, but since our article doesn't even say anything I'm not sure that belongs but it isn't particularly harmful to anyone. They then moved on to what we were discussing before. They added the claim it was a drug and alcohol fueled blackout, which is not good, although whether it's better or worse to say that than to say someone admitted to something is an open question. They also added allegedly which considering we don't even really have a source for the first incident, and the source for the second is so poor, is surely a fair addition. (Of course the best thing to do was just remove these statements, like they attempted to do the first two time.)

They then changed the location for the arrest to what is supported by our sources. They also added something to say it was 'after a party' which doesn't seem to be directly supported by our sources and although it doesn't seem surprising and isn't really negative, given the absence of support and the fact it's not important, was an unwelcome but not really harmful addition.

They also removed mention of attendance at a college. It sounds like the attendance isn't disputed (and some primary sources seem to confirm it) even though the statement is unsourced. Since he apparently didn't graduate, the info isn't that important so the removal is mostly a minor thing. They then added mention of current attendance at a different university. This new statement is also unsourced and I can't find any new source to confirm or deny it (although he does appear to be living where the university is) but it isn't something harmful so the addition isn't a major fault.

Finally GetCrucial added a bunch of claims. Some of the claims seem to repeating stuff that is mentioned earlier although since the source is from 2010 and it sounds like the subject has had a lot going on since then, it's probably not a good source for what he's currently doing (but since the article already says that, saying it again isn't good writing but isn't that harmful).

The bit about the current residence seems completely unsourced and considering we have sources saying he lived elsewhere in September 2013, we should be careful with such claims but isn't not really that surprising or harmful. The final point about writing a novel could be taken as harmful particularly considering what else is mentioned although mostly concurs with stuff that our article already says.

In other words, even if we look at the second edit, GetCrucial11735 were some good, some not so good. Considering there was nothing majorly bad and they did partial correcting some clear cut problems, I don't think you can say the they did anything that wrong other than the legal threats. So while the legal threats were highly unwelcome and blocking them for them may be fine, they had a point and we should not lose the forest from the trees.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The manner in which we collectively interact with unhappy BLP subjects continues to be an embarrassment to the site and needs a fundamental reevaluation. In any event, the user has now stated on his talkpage, if not in optimal terms, that there is no legal threat. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Blanket statement on unhappy BLP subjects aside: do you feel comfortable that they have actually retracted the legal threats? I sincerely hope not. Doc talk 06:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

At this point, the "legal threat" is that the editor will have counsel call the Office to discuss the article. Presumably the Office will explain how BLP subjects (or their friends and family) with concerns should address them, such as through OTRS, a type of conversation that occurs several times a week. WP:NLT states that politely raising a legal concern about BLP-violating content without referencing litigation is not a "legal threat," and in this instance, considering the monstrously ill-considered fashion in which this editor was greeted, I would give him the benefit of the doubt at this stage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The statement "My lawyer WILL be contacting Wikipedia tomorrow morning in order to verify these changes. It is illegal and violates several defamation laws, among a myriad of harassment laws" is about as unambiguous a legal threat as it gets. The "myriad" of laws that are allegedly being violated are up for debate. You see this as not a legal threat? Shocking, really. Doc talk 07:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In isolation that is not acceptable but the subsequent edit, after NLT was explained, backs away from the threatening aspect, which is what we want people to do when NLT is explained. At no time has anyone explained to the editor what other avenues are available to him, beyond intoning that he has a COI and should not edit the article. If you want to cudgel a more direct retraction from the editor I can't stop you, especially as it is after midnight and I need to call it a day, but I don't think we could have collectively handled this situation worse if we had been trying to—and this is far from the only one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it was handled well, according to policy. The first edit summary indicated a legal threat, more were issued, no threats have truly been retracted at all; and the diff I provided above indicates that this user has no intention of doing anything but whitewashing this article, without providing references to back up their edits. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 07:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The article in question over the course of the last 24 hours is pretty much a textbook example of terrible sourcing of a BLP. Most of the sources are gossipy tabloid garbage, and why oh why are we reporting arrests without convictions of an admitted alcoholic? Every single crappy source and all the gossippy factoids therein should be stripped from the article, and if all that remains is a stub, so be it. Maybe we will then conclude that this person just isn't notable, and if the article gets deleted, I don't see that as much of a loss to the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Doc talk 07:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Just above, you accused the editor in question of trying to "whitewash" the article. There isn't a single solitary reliable source in the article that establishes notability of this person. One is an arrest report, presumably reliable. Every single other source is snarky gossip that in my opinion, should be stripped from the article. "Whitewashing" is trying to remove well-referenced negative material, presented with due weight, in a biography of a truly notable person. That's not what is going on here. This article, in my opinion, is a contemptible gossip dump. BLP policy is exceptionally important. Vastly more important than somebody shooting off their mouth about calling their lawyer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I said whitewash because I really don't know where they came up with their info (since it has no referencing), but also didn't seem overly negative. The article being reduced to a stub is quite appropriate if there is nothing to reliably reference it. Doc talk 07:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) More important than a legal threat? I don't know about that, but OAN, the article for the series the subject is apparently best known for isn't in the greatest shape either. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why they needed to provide references when a lot of what they were doing was either supported by the existing references, or lack of references. Nil Einne (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it seems the editor has been unblocked "per ANI discussion". What a joke. No block appeal needed, apparently. The editor who unblocked him is one, in my opinion, who should just simply resign for several embarrassing reasons. Doc talk 08:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please cease your unseemly headhunting of a newbie and your ongoing personal attacks against me. Who exactly was threatened with what? If you can't make your case politely, you might not have one. Jehochman ^Talk 08:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to be polite and explain legal threats to an admin. There was no consensus to unblock here, there was no block appeal. You took it upon yourself to unblock this user against procedure and policy. Not impressed at all. Doc talk 08:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You need to be polite. You are modeling bad behavior where others are watching. That's not so good. If you look at this thread four or five sensible editors say this situation should have been handled differently. One cited WP:DOLT. Please go read that. I don't need to repeat the arguments detailed there. Jehochman ^Talk 08:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't model bad behavior. What you think is bad behavior might be radically different from what others think. Paid advocacy editing, legal threats, etc. I think those things can be bad behavior. Maybe you don't. Doc talk 08:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What a dreadful way to handle this. Yes, he made a legal threat, but only after he tried to remove defamatory content with some very very thin sourcing (per Nil Einne above) from his own biography in the proper way. For his trouble, he was templated and threatened. Perhaps if he'd been treated with a bit more respect and understanding to start with, it never would have come to threats of legal action. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC).

Agreed. I jumped in far too quickly on this article, and despite checking the references briefly I didn't go far enough before reverting. This is the second time in the last 10 months that I have made the error of jumping to the conclusion that the subject of the article was censoring when in fact they had a legitimate concern, and it will be the last time. I have revised my templated warnings on the editor's talk page accordingly and thanks to Jehochman for stepping in appropriately. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:32, 6 January 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 by ColonelHenry

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 wouldn't usually bother with this but seeing as the editor concerned has been blocked in the past for similar behaviour, I think administrative attention is required. ColonelHenry thinks personal attacks are the correct response to being advised that his edits have been cleared up according to policy. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Suriel1981 is trigger-happy and making a mountain out of a molehill. And for your information (since you're both wrong and impatient) I was blocked 9 or 10 months ago for 24 hours for reverting vandalism to a featured article on the main page, not for incivility. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

My information is accurate. Blocked for this. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Forgot about that one...but still, rehashing 9 month old resolved issues is not good form and distracts from the matter at hand.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Suriel ... could you please link to where you discussed this with the editor directly before coming here, as is required? ES&L 18:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And what exactly am I supposed to discuss with an editor who swears at me the first time I leave them a talkpage message...?? Maybe you could link to where it says editors should engage with those who are directing personal attacks at them? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Because shooting first and asking questions later (if you bother to at all) is such a great way of conflict resolution-- Apparently for someone who wants to jam rules down my throat, you failed to pay attention to the procedure here. Go figure. Sorry btw, that I responded so negatively to you chomping at the bit to bite my head off for putting up a redlink that I was going to service anyway (and did). If you engaged in dialogue first (which is always the first step in conflict resolution) before shooting from the hip, and didn't get me stuck in four edit conflicts, I'd be a happier camper and you'd know that was my to-do list for today (that sadly, I'm distracted from and not really inclined to do now). --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Coincidentally, I reached out to Suriel to say "I was planning to add a few articles to satisfy the redlinks" over the next few days[73] (a petition for patience and to let Suriel know what I was up to)...apparently it was more important to demand the letter of the law (it kills according to St. Paul) and cut away immediately instead of waiting a few minutes where Suriel could have noticed by checking my contributions I started creating articles to satisfy those redlinnks moments after adding them. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• This seems to be related to the interaction between the two editors at Scott Hall (disambiguation). Suriel1981 removed redlinked entries while ColonelHenry was in the process of writing stubs for those redlinks. Suriel1981 went to ColonelHenry's User Talk about removing the links and ColonelHenry snapped back. Maybe ColonelHenry should have waited until the articles were created before adding them back, and ColonelHenry didn't use the best language on their User Talk, but editors are given wide discretion over their own User Talk. I can see by Suriel1981's own User page that they're not afraid of curse words, and I don't see any evidence that Suriel1981 tried to talk to about this withColonelHenry before coming here. Both editors exhibited some suboptimal behavior and overall I don't see anything here warranting administrator action. Zad68 18:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of curse words but I do not use them on other editors!! "Editors are given wide discretion over their own User Talk"...??? Since when does WP:NPA not apply to talkpages?? What "suboptimal behaviour" have I exhibited that warrants abuse?? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Suriel1981 you didn't do anything to deserve abuse but the reality is that the Wikipedia community has decided that an occasional outburst like ColonelHenry's is to be tolerated and isn't actionable by an administrator. And, as Drmies says below, it's even harder to generate support for action when you haven't tried to resolve this between yourselves on your User Talk pages before coming here. It looks like ColonelHenry has provided (a very passive-aggressive) apology above, I know it's not great but can you please just accept that? Zad68 19:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You're speaking my language a bit more with that. I've been out of action for 18 months and the community has certainly changed if it's tolerated for editors to talk like that to each other in that manner. Well... thanks for being candid about the comment being acceptable. I wasn't aware of that, which might be why I feel like there's a (fucking) joke here that I'm not quite in on. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, fuck, Colonel--there is no need to call someone an "impatient fuck", even if they sure are impatient. Fuck, Suriel--there is no need to drag someone over to ANI for a "fuck" on their own talk page. You may be right as far as MOS:DAB is concerned, but fuck, let the man add his links and then the articles. Your high-handed "cleaned up according to protocol" is pretty passive-aggressive, and wholly unnecessary. Yes, what Zad says. No action required, except for a sheesh is this the best we can do? Do you know that there may be young editors reading this exchange? Drmies (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

So personal attacks are okay as long as it's done on talkpages? Then why the hell do we have warning templates for it? If there are young editors reading, they're getting a good idea of what they can get away with. As far as my editing being "passive aggressive", well, maybe we're reading a different Wikipedia. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

So then warn them. Talk to them. It wasn't all that serious of a PA, to be honest. When I first read the link, based on the context, I saw it as "...impatient? Fuck!" not calling someone an "impatient fuck". ES&L 19:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Three points here:
How many experienced editors pay attention to warnings that don't come from admins? None, which is why ANI is always such an exciting place.
Why would I want to attempt discussion with someone who launches personal attacks on first contact?
There is nothing on NPA stating "you impatient fuck" is not a very serious PA. What exactly would you consider to be a serious PA? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, if you called me an "impatient fuck", I'd probably laugh and say "so? tell me something I don't know"--so a thicker skin is in order, just like I can always be a little less temperamental. Someone puts up a red link and you revert, and they revert you and say "hey, I'm planning to make that red link blue" don't jump on them next time. We're here to build an encyclopaedia, each of us does it differently but we get to the same place. We're not here to be a traffic cop making sure people slow down when its unnecessary. I hate rules, I hate people who impose rules for no reason other than it's a rule. There's no need to be quick to beat up on someone with a rule if they're working toward adding content. There's no reason to be like Robocop if someone puts up a red link before making the article when you like the order the other way around. WP:IAR...if a rule inhibits the improvement and growth of the encyclopaedia, fuck it.--21:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColonelHenry (talk • contribs)

• I'm with Drmies and EatsShootsAndLeaves here. Did you want him to be blocked or something, User:Suriel1981? --John (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Look, I'm not an administrator and it's not up to me how policies are enforced, although I'm not amused by this tosh that it "wasn't a serious FA and if it was, you deserved it for being passive aggressive". If I recall correctly, I recently !voted in support of a Featured Article nomination of one of ColonelHenry's articles, so I'm not begging for a ban. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'd have to third Drmies and ES&L. Dropping the f-bomb is uncalled for and highly uncivil. So is dragging someone to ANI post-haste over it. Suriel was correct in their interpretation of the MOS, given the circumstances (how could they have known?). However, their method of enforcement was a little harsh for the discrepancy, and needs some toning down. Other than that, I see nothing warranting a drama-fest. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 20:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Let's close this fucking thing. It's going nowhere... - ^theWOLFchild 20:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That was fucking hilarious, thanks. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Behold, the Wikipedia Drinking Game: every time someone uses the word "fuck" in their response to a thread complaining about profanity, take a shot. As a result, I'm now too drunk to close this thread. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:18, 6 January 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.

images all over

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

---

Resolved

Really need an admin here despite being told that image spam on disambiguation pages are not the norm User:68.201.99.145 still keep adding huge amount of images to disambiguation page as seen here and here. What are we to do if the editor refuse to read our policies that are linked for them or listen to the advice of old editors? This come after a report at Edit warring noticeboard. -- Moxy (talk)

He hasn't edited since I engaged him on his talkpage (assuming the IP is a "he") ES&L 19:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you believe what you have said to him will stop his editing behavior over what others have said?...I hope so!! Anyways hes been blocked for 48 hours....will report again if there's is more problems. -- Moxy (talk) 20:01, 6 January 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.

Requesting a move

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 an admin move User:King jakob c 2/West Branch Mahantango Creek to West Branch Mahantango Creek. I'd obviously do it myself, but the move target is a redirect with an edit history. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:48, 6 January 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.

Edit summaries of User:200.30.223.19

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

---

A list of the edit summaries can be found at Special:Contributions/200.30.223.19. The IP user above, 200.30.223.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), has been warned repeatedly of edit summaries that are a clear violation of policy, due to the aggressive and snide tone and belittling fellow editors. A formal warning was issued on the user's talk page on 31 December 2013, but as shown on the user's contributions page, the tone and content of the summaries has not changed even after this warning. Attempts have been made with the user to downplay the attitude and tone to no avail, as the user defends his/her behaviour. Bailmoney27 ^talk 18:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I wouldn't mind a block for a few days or even a week because this IP is just not getting it. Bad editing is an issue, sure, but the way s/he is trying to handle things is ridiculous...and the comment "this is not a place to chat to each other and be nice" kind of rubbed me the wrong way; I mean, you're not supposed to be nice on Wikipedia? It also doesn't help that his/her attitude suggests that s/he thinks s/he is better than everyone else. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This thread still requires comment from an administrator. Thank you. Bailmoney27 ^talk 01:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• IP hasn't edited since soon after this ANI report, so I'm not inclined to take any actions. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • In that case, I'll NAC this. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:24, 9 January 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.

Wikihounding by Beyond My Ken

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.

---

Three days ago (January 4, 2014) I made an edit to Bradbury Building to fix a grammatically incorrect comma. This edit was reverted in good faith by user Beyond My Ken. Ignorant of the BOLD procedure and completely sure of my beliefs, I reverted the revert along with an explanation of why the comma was incorrect. User reverted and kindly replied with an explanation of his revert. Knowing his explanation to be incorrect, I reverted and tactfully tried to argue my point, upon which he again reverted, using foul language. User than left a message on my talk page, informing me of the BOLD procedure. I apologized for being unaware of it and thanked the user for pointing it out to me, after showing user multiple sources supporting my argument and requesting that user show me a source that supports their own argument.

I heard nothing from Beyond My Ken until today (January 7, 2014). User reverted my edit on Hollywood Reservoir although we had not yet reached a consensus on the previous edit of the same nature. I started a new section on user's talk page, asking user to read the reply I left and the sources I provided. User refused to look over the evidence I had provided and began to go through my edit history to "correct" edits I made to previous pages, including Paley Center for Media (diff here), Pittosporum (diff here), Varieties of Chinese (diff here), Montecito View House (diff here), and Oldest schools in California (diff here).

I replied to my previous post on user's talk page with further explanations and evidence to support my edits on the subsequent posts but was met with more foul language, a personal attack, and further disregard for my request for sources that back up user's beliefs (as can be scene under the section "Bradbury Building and Hollywood Reservoir" linked to above).

User Beyond My Ken is repeatedly confronting and inhibiting my work by following my edit history on multiple pages and reverting productive edits without regard to the evidence I have provided or continued, productive discussion. In the last instance listed, the revert seemed to be made out of spite and without reason. This seems to be with an apparent aim of causing me both irritation and distress, leaving me with the feeling that I am being Wikihounded and cyberbullied and seriously disrupting my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. JustAMuggle (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

BMK's edits are correct. The edit summaries (e.g. "wrong, again," "bad writing" are unnecessarily inflammatory but unfortunately Wikipedia has no reasonable way to edit them. Telling BMK to "please read the following links to educate yourself" is itself condenscending and offensive. In the future, JAM will likely find it more productive to use positive "I" statements. e.g. "I'm using the guidance at link" NE Ent 11:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. Whether he is right or wrong, JustAMuggle, a user who claims to be a professional editor in RL, has made a case for his edits in several talk page discussions deleted by Beyond My Ken from his talk page.[74] From what I can tell, JustAMuggle has engaged Beyond My Ken in a civil manner. I did not find his comments condescending nor offensive, but I did find Beyond My Ken extremely rude and aggressive.[75] According to the interaction analyzer, Beyond My Ken appears to be hounding JustAMuggle across multiple articles and engaging in edit wars. Viriditas (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I see several errors here. JAM shouldn't have reverted back per WP:BRD, but given that JAM wasn't aware of that guideline, BMK should have posted a message on their talkpage with a link to it. Had BMK done that, it is plausible that JAM wouldn't have reverted back a second time, and BMK wouldn't have felt the need of using foul language in the edit summary of their (third) revert.

Conclusions:

1. Discussion is not to be conducted in edit summaries, but on talk pages.
2. When it is apparent that a user is unaware of WP:BRD, post a message on their talkpage.
3. BMK should definitely refrain from using foul language. Had he followed #2, he probably wouldn't have felt the need to use foul language. See?

Now, kiss and make up.

HandsomeFella (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Also add another one: BMK should not WP:OWN several articles, as he did at Bradbury Building. See this report. Epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Epicgenius that link in no way shape or form indicates ownership. Any editor who has edited here for more than a couple years and has even one page on their watchlist can have more edits than anyone else on a given article. To prove ownership you need a detailed analysis of the edits. MarnetteD | Talk 18:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

And on Great Jones Street, and on Cooper Square and Bowery ...; the list just goes on and on. Epicgenius (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen. As MarnetteD said above, the output of that toolserver tool isn't evidence of ownership in the WikiJargon sense. To expand: I see some edit wars on the first two articles you linked, which likely (though not always) indicate an ownership problem, but nothing problematic in the third. Ownership in this sense doesn't just mean making a lot of edits to the same page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I meant Bowery for the third one. Sorry. Epicgenius (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you not understanding what Writkeeper and I am telling you. Here is the example - you have 63 edits on Bowery (when I checked a few minutes ago anyway) and that is one less the BMK. If we use your interpretation of those numbers than you are also in violation of WP:OWN. That toolserver cannot be used to show "ownership" pf an article. Only a detailed analysis of the edits can. MarnetteD | Talk 20:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Many of these edits were reverts of BMK wanting to have his way on the article. For example, I added a map to the article, one hour later he reverts it. Another example, I resize an image, and 80 minutes later he reverts it. In September, he reverted an edit I had made less than two hours before. I fix something, he undoes it one and a half hours later. We've made a working agreement since then, but Beyond My Ken still exhibits that same behavior toward other users. Epicgenius (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but what we're trying to say is that the only behavior your diffs show is that BMK has a large watchlist and disagrees with people at times. that is not ownership. Ownership is a sustained pattern of edits and reverts to a single article, showing that the editor believes (and acts on the belief) that, when it comes to their article, it's their way or the highway. One edit does not a pattern make. Nor, incidentally, does a series of edits that correct actual mistakes in the article, or disagreeing with people about edits: policy says that, provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded, being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership, and goes into more detail about ownership vs. stewardship. What MarnetteD and I are saying is that you need to provide enough diffs (and analysis thereof) to demonstrate the pattern of ownership. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Supposedly, due to this edit, I am now banned from his talkpage. Could someone please explain to him the inappropriateness of doing such things? He has done this once before, which resulted in a block for me. Epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

He is allowed to ban people from his talkpage; it won't get you blocked unless you decide to ignore it. Just don't post there any more, and there are no issues. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't posted on his talkpage yet. I want someone to be a mediator between me and him; I discussed the idea of asking Drmies or Bwilkins to mediate, following the time that I was blocked for posting on his talkpage. Epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This dispute is silly, and BMK is correct. From a purely grammatical POV, the commas are optional and it's fine either way. However:

"Brobdingnagians are A and do B."

"Brobdingnagians are A, and do B."

Both versions indicate that (1) Brobdingnagians are A, and (2) Brobdingnagians do B. But there is a subtle difference. The commaless first version implies a close connection between the two statements. The second version is more general, and in journalese can even be abused to join two unrelated statements into a single sentence for no obvious reason other than perhaps keeping the sentence count down. Therefore:

"Brobdingnagians are giants(,) and have rats the size of large dogs." (optional comma)

"Brobdingnagians are giants, and were first described by anthropological pioneer Lemuel Gulliver."

The disputed sentences are like the second example and consequently the comma is not optional.

This information is based on my language instinct (well trained through extensive reading of a wide range of English literature by the best authors) and therefore a lot more reliable than any layman's attempt at finding such highly specialised stuff in a written and possibly simplified grammar.

Since someone mentioned that JustAMuggle claims to be a professional editor: It is well documented that professional editors are often wrong about various fine points of language use. In fact, this is a running gag at Language Log, a blog by professional linguists. Example post: [76]. Hans Adler 18:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The latter part of this discussion – from "This dispute is silly" and down – is the content part, which is better discussed elsewhere. The report was about wikihounding and foul language. I think it's better this discussion be closed now, so no more discussion about commas will ensue.

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment I must point out that that we are all volunteers here and there's no need for getting into psychological distress over so trivial stuff like commas' use. I don't think it's that important, but JAM edits, however, don't appear to be correct and in his first edit, in the sentence ″It is located at 304 South Broadway and 3rd Street, and has been the site of many movie and television shoots, rock videos, and works of fiction.″, comma is necessary to separate two not-so-related facts, but we could suppose they did it in good fight and hadn't been informed about WP:3RR and WP:BRD practices. However, my proposal includes getting JustAMuggle aware of these policies/guidelines, thus giving him clear warning about edit warring and note about dispute resolution, and still giving the user Beyond My Ken a strong warning and putting them on a single-strike rule for a while, or even a short-range block for using an inappropriate language in this edit summary. Alex ^{discussion ★} 20:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment It's rather curious to me that many are supporting Beyond My Ken's initial revert as being correct. As a matter of fact, in the quoted sentence, "It is located at 304 South Broadway and 3rd Street and has been the site of many movie and television shoots...", the inclusion of the comma is incorrect. It is not tied to the similarity of facts, as Hans Adler suggests, but to basic grammar: a compound predicate (that is, two verb phrases which share the same subject, or noun) should not be separated by a comma. For readability or stylistic purposes, we sometimes add those commas in, but from a purely grammatical standpoint, JustAMuggle's initial correction was quite appropriate. In order to place a comma there, the proper construction would be to also incorporate a pronoun ("It is located at 304 South Broadway and 3rd Street, and it has been the site...") Which is, of course, precisely why he/she was able to provide numerous sources backing up the edit. Grandpallama (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You are making a pretty unfounded distinction between "a purely grammatical standpoint" and "readability or stylistic purposes" here. The fact that you feel the need to make this concession already is a give-away that the rule forbidding such commas is not a particularly good one. I found a blog post that explains the problem in detail [77] and cites the Chicago Manual of Style on the matter: "A comma is not normally used between the parts of a compound predicate…though it may occasionally be needed to avoid misreading or to indicate a pause." Indicating a pause is what we absolutely need to do when joining two unrelated facts in this way, so my analysis is fully consistent with Chicago and could in fact have been derived from it. As a general observation, the number of sources repeating a piece of grammar advice is in no direct correlation to its quality, as is proved by the large number of 'reliable' sources on grammar ludicrously forbidding split infinitives or even the passive voice. Hans Adler 23:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the CMOS is a terrible source on English grammar: see Language Log disses Chicago. Frankly, there's a more fundamental reason the sentence needs a comma. The three conjuncts in a row here—"X and Y and Z"—have to be syntactically parenthesized as "(X and Y) and Z". The 'and' that joins the two streets and defines the intersection binds tighter than the next 'and'. Not forcing a break with a comma—or anything else other than another 'and'—is just plain rude, creating a pointlessly unnecessary garden path sentence. Choor monster (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

just to be safe, the comma should be there. Epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 8 January 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.

repeated racist comments on emmet till and trayvon martin talk pages by anon ip

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.

---

WP:BLP probably doesn't strictly apply as both subjects are dead, but user is repeatedly arguing that they deserved it in highly inflammatory terms See : EVERY edit the user has ever done. [78] Gaijin42 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This user is lying. I have flat out said multiple times that Emmett Till didn't deserve to die. I'm engaged in a constructive conversation on the Emmett Till article to change the lead from "flirting" to something more appropriate like sexual harassment, groping or sexual assault. Emmett tills actions are already described in the rest of the article and in the sources already used as variously - grabbing a woman's hand, intercepting her when she ran from him and grabbing her around the waist and using "unprintable" words as he repeatedly sexually propositioned her. 67.42.182.67 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Also see this remarkably knowledgeable comment for an "account" that made its first edit 2 days ago, yet seems remarkably stable and not a rotating IP. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So what? 67.42.182.67 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(REDACTING quotes copied for purpose of discussion that are racist) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your out-of-context comment conveniently left out where I said this, "He obviously didn't deserve to be killed for it, but he was obviously a troublemaker/punk." If I felt he deserved to die I wouldn't have said that. Also, as you quoted, I said that the "punishment didn't fit the crime." In other words, you don't kill someone for groping and manhandling a small woman you grossly outweigh. So you have yet to prove that I said they "deserved it" not that it would matter anyway because I'll admit to it right now for Trayvon - he did deserve to die because that's a natural consequence of attacking someone without just cause. Did you want to ban me for that opinion? Your history of harassment is noted in your block log btw. 67.42.182.67 (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, amazing knowledge for a 2 day old account. WP:SOCK "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address" Gaijin42 (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't care if it's a sock, it's disruptive and racist, and picking those two articles is clearly trying to make a statement. They are blocked fox six months for disruptive editing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Observation. At the risk of sounding like a defending someone accused of racism, where is the actual racism in their edits? I thought racism is a bright line, like pornography. You know it when you see it. Calling Till and Martin punks and what-not isn't helpful, but racist? I did look at all 20 or so edits and didn't see anything that looked like out and out racism. But as I said first, and will say again, maybe I missed it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this IP editor's suggested edits to Emmett Till, it is a bigot-oriented attempt to cast aspersions on Till to suggest he was culpable, i.e. "asking for it". Not a new thing at all. Tarc (talk) 03:37, 8 January 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:Jmh649 reverted edits in page Chikungunya and Dengue fever saying Government of India source as untrusted

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:Jmh649 has reverted my edits in page Chikungunya - diff - Treatment diff and Dengue fever - diff - Management diff by saying the sources from Goverment of India document prepared by Indian chief doctors from www.ccras.nic.in website, www.thehindu.com, timesofindia.indiatimes.com, www.nst.com.my are UNTRUSTED.

He reverted my edits without any discussion. Since User:Jmh649 is an administrator, i didn't revert back his change and wanted to discuss it here.

I want to clarify here first that my additions are compliant to wikipedia. Sathishmls (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks happy to discuss. So the exact text added was

"However in India, chikungunya is effectively controlled by Siddha medicine‎ which is advised strongly by CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDA AND SIDDHA, Department of AYUSH, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.MANAGEMENT OF CHIKUNGUNYA THROUGH AYURVEDA AND SIDDHA - A technical ReportRelief for chikungunya in Siddha medicine Hence countries like Malaysia are trying to integrate Siddha medicine‎ along with their primary healthcare.Intergrating Siddha medicine in Malaysian primary healthcare" in this edit [79]

None of these sources are sufficient per WP:MEDRS just as I mentioned on your talk page [80]. We do not accept popular press for health claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The first source i have added is the document [81] which is prepared by Dr.M.M.Padhi, Dr.M.M.Rao, Dr.Ganapathiraman and it is reviewed by Dr.Lalitkanth, Scientist-G & Head ECD, Indain Council of Medical Research, Dr.S.K.Mishra, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Dr.A.C.Mishra, Director, National Institute of Virology.

So you say the above document cannot be trusted ? Sathishmls (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Also as per WP:MEDRS, the above document is from a Medical and scientific organizations source. Sathishmls (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Which page are you quoting from? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You can refer pages from 54 to 60. It gives the details of the hospitals, siddha medicines used, number of patients treated, results, etc. An overall improvement is summarised in table 22 in page 65. Sathishmls (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm...Ya...I can't see how any of those are reliable medical sources. I'd suggest searching the comprehensive database of medical research literature for a review of literature or meta-analysis. Just because something comes from the government does not make it their official stance, peer-reviewed/medical consensus, or correct (aside: personally, I wouldn't trust the Indian FDA's position). Doc James was right in removing that content because none of it is MEDRS.

Also, it's ridiculous that you brought this here over a single good-faith revert, as you effectively copied the same content to many places. Moreover, it's probably a safe assumption that you saw the previous person on his talk page made an ANI section and then thought making this one would be more incriminating. Frankly, that kind of behavior is completely juvenile. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So it doesn't say "chikungunya is effectively controlled by Siddha medicine‎" You just interpreted this table to mean that it worked? It does not even appear that they had a control group. And this is a condition that improves without treatment... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

In the report, out of total 13770 patients treated, 2563 have complete relief, 4221 have marked relief, 4422 have moderate relief, 1392 have mild relief. That means that the treatment is working and it is advised officially by the Government of India.

Ok, the problem here is with my wordings or your personal dis-trust with Indian doctors and medical system (from your statements i could these traces)? Please clarify. Sathishmls (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No you definitely cannot say that. And the report does not say that either. For example if I treated 14,000 people with the common cold by giving them substance X for 2 weeks and they so happen to all be better in 2 weeks it does not mean that I have found the illusive miracle cure for the common cold.

Unfortunately the way the law stands I am allowed to say so in many jurisdictions. But that is another problem. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Though there are trustable sources, you are not discussing about how to constructively add this information. Instead you want to hide this trusted information from wikipedia. You are completely showing your personal thoughts. I need to wait till other administrators come for their opinions. Sathishmls (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse DocJames' revert not only on WP:MEDRS grounds but simply because the phrasing of the statement, which has a strong air of being promotional or of otherwise advocating a particular course of treatment. The phrasing "X effectively treats Y and Z advises its use" should be considered suspect in any article on medicine (or supplements, or probably any products), and should as a matter of policy only be allowed when discussing the popular impact of the subject. As an aside, sources such as this one, which incorporate statements such as "X promotes a healthy mind, body and soul" or similar traditional blanket claims of healthfulness along the lines of patent medicine advertisements from 100 years ago should be simply removable on sight under MEDRS rather than being subject to any more complex analysis as the guideline generally contemplates. Sorry for ranting, and I'm sure Sathishmls was acting in good faith, but I find the inclusion of such sweeping claims not only dangerous for our readers but also harmful to the credibility of the entire project. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sathishmls, the instructions at the top of this page say, in part, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." You posted here first, and only then went to his talk page to notify him of this discussion. This looks like a content dispute where Doc James was in the right, not a matter for ANI. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Since User:Jmh649 is an administrator and he removed all the content from trusted source(as per WP:MEDRS, it is from a Medical and scientific organizations source) without any discussion or re-wordings saying the source cannot be trusted. I believe as an administrator, he should not have done this. Hence i started the discussion here. Sathishmls (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure so the issue is 1) The source does not support what you were trying to get it to support 2) There are better sources such as this 2013 review article which I have added to our article [82] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that fine if i can add "In India, chikungunya is effectively managed by Siddha medicine" by referring the pdf link ? Sathishmls (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's not mandatory that Doc, having removed the content, kick off any discussion, especially if the reason for the removal was obvious (and it was). If you want the material back in, and the other party hasn't started a discussion, it falls to you to start a discussion at the talk page. ANI is not the first resort for a single perceived infraction. And Doc didn't use his administrative rights to accomplish the edit; he was acting as a normal editor. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:13, 8 January 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 at Wikiproject Cricket?

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.

---

Could admins take a look at this, which appears to be some legal threat? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to be a bit more clear - like with a diff. The only "legal" talk I see is "AA's remarks certainly fell within the ambit of libel and someone with more time on their hands might easily have begun a private prosecution against him for there is ample case law - not a threat that one - a legal truth - if those interested go on Westlaw or other similar sites you will therein discover similar prosecutions(succesful) and the rubrik of the 2013 Act. However I will leave it there" ... and there's quite the opposite of a legal threat, I don't even see those comments as specifically trying to chill a conversationES&L 10:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with ESL, it's more a call to not overlook legal threats, even if one hasn't been made yet. While I personally think allusions to "some guy" who could take legal action chill participation, the community at large apparently considers the voicing of such concerns to outweigh the possibility of users cloaking legal threats in a general concerns type post. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the legal threat issue, unless I misunderstood, the editor appears to admit to being a banned editor socking. That said, since the editor claims they are leaving I'm not sure if anyone wants to bother blocking. Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock. GiantSnowman 13:20, 8 January 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.

Mazda - Is Keiretsu relevant or not

This board is not meant for resolving content disputes. Please discuss the matter at Talk:Mazda. And only if no consensus is gained there you should contact the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. De728631 (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

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

---

I am the editor who tried to add a little information about keiretsu in the article of Mazda [83]. Unfortunately, some other editors refused to accept such information is relevant in the article. It's really frustrating for me when I try to be constructive and spent my time in researching for appro. sources. Instead I am wasting my time on talk pages after talk pages and going nowhere. Unlike some, I don't have the luxury of time of spending hours after hours just for a small bit of info. Now it's the time for Wiki community to determine if Wiki should belong to the few editors who have the luxury of time (and more often than not trigger happy to revert edit) that only reflect the POV of the selected few OR to a wider community (including those who try to contribute with limited time) while reflecting the opinion of the large!---Now wiki (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a totally ridiculous report made by someone who seems to have too much time at hand. "Now Wiki" added a short snip about what keiretsu a bank that was mentioned in passing on the article about Mazda allegedly belongs to, text that was both out of scope for the article and unsourced, and I reverted it. "Now wiki" then added it back again, and was reverted again for the same reasons, though this time by Mr.choppers. And that's all that has happened. Over and out. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:59, 8 January 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:Joefromrandb

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.

---

Joefromrandb (talk · contribs)

Accusations that IPs are socks of a banned user. When I have reverted this on the basis that there is no evidence that the IP is a sock there have been accusation of meatpuppetry.

1. Józef Kowalski Accuses 213.49.104.71 (talk · contribs) of being "Robert", presumably referring to User Ryoung122. Note that this IP is located in Brussels. I also note that the IP provides no edit summary and that Robert Young is extremely unlikely to have edited any longevity related articles without commenting (usually to promote his own epertise).
2. List of people with the longest marriages. [84] and [85] accuses 81.11.203.160 (talk · contribs) and 213.49.104.90 (talk · contribs) of being socks. These IPs are also from Brussels. [86] Claims to have restored to "last clean version". A blanket reversion of (mostly) valid changes.
3. List of oldest twins. [87] Another claim to restoration of "last clean version". Seems to have followed 83.134.143.22 (talk · contribs) (presumably the same person as other IPs as the location is Brussles) from above and blanket reverted all changes although again they appear to be valid.
4. Accusations of meatpuppetry: [88] and [89]. Another clear example of this user throwing around false accusations and attempting to bully other editors. Joefromrandb seems to be under the impression that I am one of the GRG fan club which is so far from the truth it is actually laughable.

DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just slower tonight, but it took me a while to realise what's going on. DerbyCountyinNZ is saying that Joe's making baseless accusations regarding edits to the following pages. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Accusations of sock puppetry with no apparent evidence. Accusations of meat puppetry with no evidence. Sorry if that wasn't clear. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's amusing that Derby has reported his own edit-warring. Last time I reverted this user's errors, he got his buddy, administrator Canadian Paul to block me. Apparently he considers himself so bulletproof that he's brazen enough to make multiple baseless reverts and then report someone else. A small group of users have long asserted ownership of all longevity-related articles. It would be nice if these articles were eventually returned to the community, but it really isn't an ANi issue. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've been involved in this area, but it looks more or less the same from when I was there, so if I may quickly comment before returning to isolation mode. The IPs don't strike me as being Ryoung122, because as DerbyCountyinNZ says usually Ryoung122 hastens to point out his work in the GRG. There are plenty of other IPs who edit the topic area who likely come from the Yahoo World's Oldest People group, to which Ryoung122 is openly a contributor; one could debate whether it's a meatpuppetting issue, but my experience has been they'll come over without invitation. A lot of times their edits are less than helpful, and I frequently found myself reverting them as well. DerbyCountyinNZ and I didn't always see eye-to-eye on some of the MoS issues in that project, but he's absolutely not one of the Yahoo WOP acolytes (a look at the archives of Talk:List of the verified oldest people should show that) and has always been willing to discuss things. Although I generally agree with the thrust of Joefromrandb's edits, I can see why his approach is somewhat off-putting. If he could write with a little more tact, I think the issues at each article could be resolved without too much difficulty. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

By "sock of Robert Young", I didn't mean it literally, as in Robert typing the edits. I was referring to Robert's promise to edit Wikipedia by proxy, as his legion of followers will update Wikipedia as Robert updates his sites. Perhaps I should have said "meat of banned editor"; after 3 years, I'm still learning the lingo. Yes, my tact could still use some improvement, but even if I wrote with the tact of a Dennis Brown, these issues are unlikely to be resolved until someone steps in and enforces Wikipedia's core policies on longevity-related articles. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not as bad as it once was, the area has definitely improved since the arbitration case which I was marginally involved in, but I see many of the same problems you do. It doesn't hugely matter whether the IPs are acting as proxies for him or not, they're essentially serving that function and should be treated as if they were. I think what the area needs, more than anything else, is some fresh eyes, and that would be more than a hint for anyone happening across this thread... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no evidence that these edits are being made by anyone with a link to Robert Young or the GRG, and don't recall ever seeing anything on their website on any of these topics. The IP appears to be merely someone with an interest in marriages/twins, presumably with a first language other than English. If they hadn't also edited the Kowalski article we wouldn't be here! I have been trying to reduce the OR and fanfluff aspects of these articles (check the edit history and talk pages) and eventually might be able to turn them into properly encyclopedic articles although I might have to settle for merely wiki compliant. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• User:DerbyCountyinNZ, did you try discussing this with Joefromrandb on his talk page? Have you tried any other means of WP:DR? It's seems you have not. Instead, you just came straight here. What admin intervention are you seeking? - ^theWOLFchild 15:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Presumably, false accusations of sockpuppetry violate WP:NPA and WP:BITE and would potentially have a chilling effect. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Potentially, the Sun will stop shining tomorrow and the Earth will stop turning tonight. Can you point to any documented instance where accusations of sockpuppetry have resulted in a real and measurable chilling effect? No, you can't because it has never occurred. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

So what about WP:NPA and WP:BITE? Right, those only apply to some people. If someone isn't part of the "angry nerd" clique then who cares, right? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Cliques aren't necessarily good or bad, they are simply emergent forms of human social groupings. We find them almost everywhere. In any case, I'm not part of any clique. The only clique of angry nerds that I'm aware of are slashdotters, and while they can be annoying sometimes, they are generally good people. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The few dealings I have already had with this editor, and a check of his previous history on his talk page bears this out, to not expect any reasonable discussion to take place by interacting directly with him. I expect nothing more than a warning against making false and unsubstantiated allegations of sock and meat puppetry against other editors and to not revert edits purely on such false assumptions. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Derby, you're apparently missing the perspicacious comments of TBotNL, specifically: "It doesn't hugely matter whether the IPs are acting as proxies for him or not, they're essentially serving the same function and should be treated as such". Joefromrandb (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef of Joe: In previous discussions we've had, the general consensus was that indef would be on the table if Joe didn't stop edit-warring or personally attacking other editors. He hasn't gotten the hint to stop this actions pbp 02:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

In the previous discussions you've had, the general consensus was also that you should stay away from Joefromrandb because your interactions with him have been increasingly disruptive, yet any time his name is brought up anywhere, it's almost certain that you'll comment, trying to get Joe blocked (which ironically has gotten you blocked previously). Perhaps you should take the hint as well. - Aoidh (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you're here to blast me rather than address the issue at hand, namely Joe's edit warring after a multitude of warnings, discussions and blocks that say he should stop. Got it pbp 01:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose indef of Joe: there is a larger issue at hand here, namely the ownership of longevity articles by groups of users. This issue should be explored and resolved. Stop attacking the messengers. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, thank you for your "oppose", but please understand that no one takes anything that user proposes seriously. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ownership of longevity articles isn't an excuse for edit-warring. pbp 05:14, 7 January 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:Inayity -- Disruptive Editing

Editor Inayity has been engaging in disruptive editing by refusing to build consensus or engage in discussion about my edits on the article for the Moors and it has been happening for quite some time now. I consistently ask him what is problem is with my edits but he refuses to tell me a specific problem or just a problem in general now. I find it ironic he has deemed me a "disruptive editor" yet he falls oh so perfectly into the #4 primer of disruptive editing. Obviously on the Moor page my consensus building has been going on for quite a period of time but recently it has gone nowhere and there is an ongoing stalemate due to the fact Inayity does not want to build consensus. The only editor on there who has attempted to build consensus recently was Pinkbeast but even then he reverted my edit for a reason not advised by Wikipedia and I also find it quite strange how Pinkbeast has responded for Inayity a few times too, seems a little suspicious tbh. I also wanted to point out most of Inayity's posts come off as barely-coherent and he even has used misquotes too.

Here is just one example that occurred recently and I could post more if you like. Here I say "new edits have been elaborated on the talk page -- please do not revert for a reason not advised by WP like last time, thank you" and then he responds with "rv to agreed stable version, rv disruptive editor" and does not even attempt to discuss these changes on the talk page like I did. I then respond with the following -- "You keep reverting without discussion on the talk page, stop. Go to the talk page for discussion, then we can go from there" which he responds with nothing but a reversion. You can then see my response to that blank reversion and his "disruptive editor" claim here and the last couple of the posts on the talk page and posts in general can give you more information on the situation. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This seems more suitable for WP:DRN because it is a content dispute. In fact, there are only two reversions in either direction (careful about violating WP:3RR, you two). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I felt that it might be more suitable for this page considering the fact how long it has been going on and like I basically just stated I could show more occurrences of him not acknowledging a problem with my editorial yet continuing to revert without even attempting to build consensus with me. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Erpert here that you should use some form of WP:Dispute resolution. Whatever you may think of Inayity's responses, it's not like they haven't responded. And so has another editor. Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

More than not respond take a look at how much discussion has gone on about the same ISSUE. Over and over again. Reinserting something two editors have said do not help the article. And still he edit wars. He is making these edits while doing some "useful" edit and then saying "what did i do wrong?" well what you did wrong was the same thing you have been doing wrong all week. So the soln is to disrupt the article by adding his pov (against the rest of us).--Inayity (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually my edits have changed and progressed over time. Two editors who have reverted my article for reasons not advised by Wikipedia and for poor reasons without failing to elaborate. If you sincerely believe my edits are so poor, why don't you be specific about the problem? I've told you my current issue with the article and even your recent additions, yet you can't seem to point out a fault with my editorial and ignore my questions when confronted with them which is the epitome of a disruptive editor by falling into that #4 aspect of the primer. Also who are you quoting with "what did i do wrong"? You're misquoting me again. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not a school teacher who is paid to correct your experiments with this article. review Paul disagrees, I disagree and so does Pinkbeast that is 3 which do not find your contributions helpful to this article.

Pinkbeast's reversion is for a reason not advised by Wikipedia and I already put that in the OP of this topic. Paul's reversion came awhile back before my editorial changed. You revert without failing to elaborate or point out a problem on multiple questionings and for a reason not advised by Wikipedia like Pink. So two reversions come from reasons not advised by Wikipedia and Inayity has failed to point out a problem with my editorial on multiple occasions when asked, not just in one questioning. I on the other hand have asserted my problem with the article and even on new changes recently like this one but Inayity can't point out a problem when asked multiple times. Nothing more than disruptive editing from Inayity who falls into that #4 part of the disruptive editing primer perfectly. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

70, what exactly are these "reasons not advised by Wikipedia" (paraphrased) that you keep referring to? Edits have to fit Wikipedia standards, true, but sometimes the reasoning behind said edits simply falls under common sense. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 03:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about the reversion of my edits by reverting simply because there is no consensus and it is advised by Wikipedia not to revert simply because no consensus. Yes, my new edits have been made to the article but I have been reverted for the 'because there is no consensus' reason that is advised not do. Inayity has used this excuse on the talk page and continues to fail to explain why he disagrees with my editorial personally, but will revert and say things like 'no consensus has been made so it's okay to revert' yet won't elaborate why he dissents with my edits. Unlike thyself who has made it explicit why he dissents with the article whether it be older versions of it or new additions to it.70.126.13.113 (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll put it simple for you. Whatever you may think the guidelines say, ultimately you need to achieve consensus for your edits. People shouldn't generally revert your edits simply because they have no consensus but sometimes it justified for various reasons. And more importantly, people don't need to provide detailed rationale for why they disagree with your edits, pointing out problems along with some minimal elaboration where necessary is often enough. And it's clear multiple people have discussed the edits with you, whatever you may think of those responses, so you cannot claim there has been no discussion. It's up to you to fix these problems if you can, via discussion. It's possible what you are proposing can simply never happen if the edits are that bad and can never lead to an improvement. It's important you take the feedback on board, if you continually propose the same thing without fixing the problems or can't see obvious problems with your edits which have been pointed out to you, people may start to think you lack the competence to edit wikipedia. If you feel people are being unreasonable, instead of continually trying to make the same or very similar edits when you know they are objected to or trying to get those opposed to your edits blocked or sanctioned, you should follow some form of dispute resolution. Such discussion will need to focus on the edits/content, not the behaviour of other parties. If you don't do this, the most likely thing which will happen is a boomerang block of you particularly since it appears multiple people object to your edits and you're the only one supporting them, suggesting consensus is more against them than in favour. Nil Einne (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I know that I need to achieve consensus for my edits, the thing is I can't achieve consensus when one is willing to revert my editorial yet not explain his problem with my ramifications. I am willing to discuss things in a civil fashion on an article whether it be in an edit summary or the talk page. This can't occur if I keep getting reverted yet the person mainly doing it doesn't explain why he dislikes my edits. I mean, how many times do I need to ask what his problem with my changes is? I'm not even asking for "detailed rationale", just a simple concise answer that he doesn't respond with.70.126.13.113 (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I see plenty of comments mentioning problems with your edits like

"The current version is far better and more encyclopedic than your version"

and

"Why dont you do your edit without deleting the existing sentences, integrate something"

and

"Do you realize your edit A. has no ref. B. is less nuanced that what you replaced it with. Critical info on the European usage of Moor is now missing: e term "Moors" has also been used in Europe in a broader sense to refer to Muslims".

I think you need to read more carefully the comments you are dismissing as 'barely coherent' etc.

And as I've hinted at, there should be no reverting any more. Not because the editors shouldn't be reverting you but because you need to propose your changes to the talk page, not continuing to make them when it's clear they are contentious. And do note it doesn't matter whether the person reverting has offered that much feedback (although it seems they have), if others have pointed out problems with your edits you need to resolve their concerns rather than ignoring them because they are not the one reverting you. You can assume that anyone reverting likely has similar concerns even if they have not said so specifically.

And as I've said two times, and someone else at least once (and I think even the person you're complaining about has suggested this), if you really can't resolve the issue among existing editors, you're welcome to seek external help via some form of dispute resolution. If your claims are really true (although they don't seem it to me) the others involved will either need to offer proper feedback or stop opposing.

P.S. Making personal attacks like calling someone illiterate doesn't help you in any way.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

His responses to my edits were a long time ago and as I aforementioned my edits have changed and progressed over time. He hasn't responded to my new changes properly. I will propose my new changes to the talk page and go from there though -- hopefully editors actually respond properly this time and tell me their problems with my new proposal. You can close/delete this thread now. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want people to take you seriously, you should refrain from encouraging meatpuppetry. And when I said you should request external help, I meant external to the existing discussion, not asking on 4chan and I definitely did not mean you should tell people what to say. Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see I have tried to discuss the problems with 70.126.13.113's edits, but when they don't like the answer, they rehash the response less coherently; and as discussed on the talk page, in a condescending and impolite fashion. As noted at the talk page they have now resorted to outright meatpuppetry.

I see there is a veiled accusation of sockpuppetry above. I am not Inayity; I have no idea who they are. (Of course, I would say that, wouldn't I; but I suggest 70.126.13.113 either opens an SPI or retracts.) Pinkbeast (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This really seems like pettiness on the part of the IP address. This is a content dispute in which 70 mainly seems to be editing against consensus or near-consensus on several articles, and then brought the conflict to the wrong board anyway. It seems like on any given day, half of what is brought here to ANI really shouldn't be. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

User:66.8.164.242 possible vandalism at Polar vortex

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

---

The IP is changing referenced data and reverts other edits. Example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polar_vortex&oldid=589716033 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polar_vortex&oldid=589715986 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polar_vortex&oldid=589715694 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polar_vortex&oldid=589715490 Looking at that ip's talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:66.8.164.242 ip user is using ad hominem (see history) and not the first incident. Prokaryotes (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I tweaked the subject heading so it would link to the IP's user page (before, it behaved as though the IP was an article name). Anyway, I am going to report this at WP:AIV because this is grounds for an immediate block, imo (I know s/he insulted a bot, but still). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Reported at AIV. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Erpert, notice how he also adds ad hominem (racist) comments into articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frictional_unemployment&diff=prev&oldid=586574531 Prokaryotes (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there an admin in the house? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

AIV declined. All 66 has been doing on polar vortex is changing things, perhaps erroneously. Honestly the ad hominem edits might not even be connected to the polar vortex ones given the time difference. The edit that was posted at AIV is stale anyway. Warn, and if the behavior continues, either seek AIV (for obvious vandalism) or come back here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Could somebody revert his edits? Prokaryotes (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This user just vandalized - got banned from the same page, with very similar edits to the IP discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jballs69 Prokaryotes (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

How is inserting insults and childish jokes "very similar" to undoing an edit that split a section into two and changing dates? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Both editors use ad hominem and the timing and origin (web and mobile) suggest edits come from same user, ofc this is just my opinion. That aside, the false date introduced are still part of the article and my additional edits are still reverted. Prokaryotes (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The date is fixed now but my addition https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polar_vortex&oldid=589715349 is missing. Prokaryotes (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the information, if it is incorrect, you're welcome be bold and fix it. You aren't bound by the IP's edits. As to the identity of the IP, there's not enough data to draw any conclusions that the IP and account are the same individual, and the ad hominem edits from the IP you point out took place over 3 weeks ago... long enough that it could be someone else using that IP now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out Mendaliv. Note to admin: consider this case resolved (so far). Note to self, next time i first post on the user page - for a obligatory resolving afford. Prokaryotes (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to NAC this when I noticed that the IP has now resorted to user page vandalism. I warned him/her though. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 02:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, IP is blocked by User:Georgewilliamherbert for 24h. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:39, 9 January 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:183.100.156.105

183.100.156.105 (talk · contribs)

User:183.100.156.105 has vandalized hundreds of pages about Korean and Japanese football including Cho Jae-Jin‎, Kim Jae-Hoan, Kashima Antlers and Guizhou Renhe F.C. and so on just for 'fun'. I've given him a warning message on his user talk page but he ignores it and keeps doing that. Undoubtedly intentional vandalizing.--z4617925 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Though i looked at 1 edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kwak_Hee-Ju&diff=588185924&oldid=586059295 and it turns out the edit was a correction see http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/hee-ju-kwak/bilanz-detail/spieler_50121_2241.html But he removed an image, which im unable to judge. Prokaryotes (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It's hard for me to tell if those edits are really vandalism, but if that does turn out to be the case, report him/her at WP:AIV. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/hee-ju-kwak/bilanz-detail/spieler_50121_2241.html this page means that Kwak Hee-Ju made an appearance against Kashima Antlers on 19 April 2011, not he transferred to Kashima. Read it again carefully. User:183.100.156.105 did the same things in Korean Wikipedia and has been blocked now. --z4617925 (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sanction notifications

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 was today given a sanction, having read it and already lodged an appeal I cleared my talk page, an editor then restored the bigass template saying I am not allowed to remove it, is it to remain there as a badge of shame? Am I allowed to remove it per TPG or not? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Link to my talk page with that giant template showing[90]. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes you can remove it, and the re-addition by MrX (talk · contribs) was nothing but WP:POINT in response to this thread above. GiantSnowman 20:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There is wording to that effect at WP:REMOVED; "...and any other notice regarding an active sanction". It does seem rather Hester Prynne-ish though, and not something that I recall being enforced consistently, if at all. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 I should think that you are allowed to remove it. That's my natural reaction, and it seems to be borne out by policy: looking at the history of WP:REMOVED for context (that MrX cited when they restored the notice, and that Tarc cites above), it looks like it used to explicitly name Arbcom sanctions as one of the things that a user was not allowed to remove from their talk page. However, this discussion led to that bit being removed, and presumably AE notices would fall under the same principle. So yeah, I'd think that you are allowed to remove it. We should probably remove that "any other notice" thing that Tarc mentions, to avoid confusion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@DS: I wasn't trying to shame you. The sanction notice is required by WP:REMOVED so that others are aware that you are subject to editing restrictions. I apologize for any unintended offense.- MrX 20:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman. Please don't assume the worst. The guideline states: "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:... any other notice regarding an active sanction" "- MrX 20:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Given the discussion linked above by Writ Keeper, I see no good reason to require this notice to be displayed. Perhaps the guideline WP:REMOVED should be modified or clarified. DES ^(talk) 21:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a link to a diff, but where's the actually discussion that determined that sanction notices can be removed?- MrX 21:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Also I think it is important to note the difference between this discussion, and the discussion above. Above we are talking about being notified that at article has sanctions applied to it in general, as a pre-emptive warning (here be jellyfish). In this example there is an individually applied active sanction on the user. That A can be removed does not mean B can be removed necessarily (but maybe it can). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's going to be sort of removed when an editor archives so regardless what stupid guideline might say, once an editor reads somethjng he's not under any obligation to keep it posted.--MONGO 21:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So I removed that per the discussion here, but that is being reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed a number of times, the latest of which is Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/Archive_12#WP:BLANKING.2C_again. I believe making such a change needs to be discussed much more thoroughly on Wikipedia_talk:User_pages before removing it as a result of this brief discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Common sense says that unless the purpose is to notify others that the editor is officially adjudged unclean and that he must e'er wear a bell, that it is removable. The size of the banner seems undue for any purpose other than identifying such lepers, but placing such a strong weapon in the hands of an AE admin seems not to have been contemplated in the past. That said, if Sandstein were to insist on the bell, then the recourse would be by appeal as he notes. If it is not intended to be a perpetual sign to others, then clearly it can be removed. Only Sandstein can tell us in which manner he meant the banner. Collect (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we perhaps need an additional userpage or log for "sanctions/blocks applied" ? (Or somehow list sanctions in the block log?) Certainly nobody should have to wear the scarlet A, but there should be an easy way to tell what sanctions do or do not apply to a particular editor (ignoring global sanctions which apply to everyone on a particular topic) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Support, brilliant idea That would alleviate the "badge of shame" objections of people, while still letting third party editors who meet someone for the first time know about the status of editing privileges in contentious areas. These days, I spend nearly all my time in the climate pages, which is vast. There's a good chance I won't know if someone incurred a sanction on some part of the subject I don't edit. If they appear where I do edit, I would like to know their status. A new log would meet everyones needs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I tend to support it as well, but may I suggest we close this section as "DS is free to remove this sanction notice by consensus and perhaps IAR, but any change to the guideline should be discussed further on Wikipedia_talk:User_pages as it has been several times" or something to that effect? Toddst1 (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with most of the comments in this thread and agree that policy should allow all, or at least most, templates to be removed by the user. At the same time, there is a need to to notify the community somehow. I'm not sure how best this could be handled. Perhaps Gaijin42's idea would offer a solution.- MrX 22:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the proper venue for pursuing the log/page idea? Village pump? Generic RFC? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have created a pump thread about this idea where others may wish to comment. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Sanctions.2FAEwarnings.2Ftopic_ban_log.2Fpage Gaijin42 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As the administrator who imposed this sanction, I do not object to the notice being removed and believe that Darkness Shines was entitled to do so. That's because arbitration enforcement sanctions are logged in a central venue, which is where people would look for them, not on an editor's talk page. Reverting this removal appears disruptive and should be avoided.  Sandstein  22:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Point of order - All the arbcom cases which impose discretionary sanctions provide a "Log of notifications" and "Log of blocks and bans" section at the bottom to place permanent records of the sanctions. Similarly, Wikipedia:Editing restrictions exists for non-DS related restrictions (case results for arbcom cases, community sanctions for community-based ones). Those are the locations of record for such sanctions.

The other locations such as user and article talk pages are ephemeral, due to archiving and the like.

Whether the user talk page policy allows a user to remove the notifications, we don't require archiving bots not to archive them, and we do require the other locations to properly record them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Should this sanction be logged at WP:Arbitration/Active sanctions? I'm not sure how well this page is kept up to date. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think each Arbcom case has their own individual log, having them also logged to that make makes tremendous sense. Editors cannot be expected to know to search every single case to see if someone is sanctioned or not. It's minimal effort for the admin to note the sanction in two places. A simple comment in the case log directing the admin to also log it in the active sanctions log would be beneficial. Ravensfire (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

On a practical level, sanctions and arbcom cases happen not because of bad behavior, but because people notice and object to bad behavior. If editors keep misbehaving, then those people keep noticing, and will flag it to admins' attention including a link or reference to the sanction which is in force. And admins tend to remember. We blew past having "one place to log everything" some years ago, and realistically have to accept that they're scattered around a bit. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand that. I looked around some and found several other fairly good-sized sanction log pages. Ugh, not sure there's a really viable way outside of a database for tracking in a more centralized manner but still allowing specific views for specific areas. Ravensfire (talk) 23:32, 8 January 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.

Can't we use transclusion for the central log page? Admins could record sanctions at the individual ArbCom case log, and then the sanction would be automatically transcluded to the central log. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Violation of TPO, + inappropriate warning

Jehochman (talk · contribs) removed a talk page comment of mine [91] (on Talk:Outrage (2009 film) on grounds of WP:POINT (I also reject the idea that the post violated POINT -- WTF??). I restored it, noting that POINT is not grounds for removing someone's comment per WP:TPO. Jehochman has removed it again and threatened me with a block via a notice on my talk page. I'd like a review of these actions, please. To determine whether it was a BLP violation, please review this section of Larry Craig scandal (and also please be aware of WP:WELLKNOWN). My view is that Jehochman simply found my talk page post uncomfortable (he took it as a "personal attack") and is grossly overreacting. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I see faults on both sides. Jehochman was right in removing that contentious BLP violation. However, templating a regular is not an appropriate reaction either. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman is now deleting posts here at ANI. This is getting ridiculous. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Templates are carefully worded to convey the proper message. I seriously considered blocking, but decided that a warning would suffice because he was a regular. Using a template that says exactly what I wanted to say is not a wikicrime. Jehochman ^Talk 15:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have no objection to templating a regular (see "Template the regulars" in my userspace) but given that the allegation appears in significantly more detail in the Larry Craig scandal page and is sourced there, i don't see mentioning it on a talk page wher eit is relevant to be a BLP violation, and if it is not, removing it is, as Nomoskedasticity says, not appropriate. We can't discuss whether the allegations belong in an article without mentioning them on the talk page. DES ^(talk) 15:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Nomo, I don't find your removed comment particularly tasteful, and I can quite easily see how someone who was trying to keep hot-button BLP issues under control there would have felt that removing it was appropriate. Remember that BLP requires us at all time to be sensitive to BLP subjects. This means that even in cases where "so-and-so had sex with this-man" is an appropriate, factual statement, comments to the effect of "so-and-so loves him some gay sex, eh? Eh?!" are not. Not even on talk pages, not even when you're in a dispute and trying to make a point. Remember that WP:WELLKNOWN, which is being cited in that discussion to justify discussing the sexual allegations, is at pains to point out that allegations should always be referred to as allegations (you didn't; you appear to be arguing that the allegations must be true and Jehochman is silly to be trying to be sensitive to BLP issues), and WP:BLP, its parent policy, specifies that negative BLP content must be in a "dispassionate" tone.

  Now, was this particular comment that you made and Jehochman removed the most egregious BLP violation ever? No, but it was distasteful, and doesn't speak well for your approach to either BLP or the RfC you're participating in there. Was Jehochman right to remove it? Ehhhh, I don't think it was a fantastic decision, less because your comment was not problematic than because he seems to be (in all good faith) stretching single-admin BLP management in trying to manage that whole article situation. Do I think you need to be more cognizant of the fact that you're talking about real people, with real emotions and real lives, when you're tempted to make pointed comments with less-than-tasteful phrasing? Yeah, definitely. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

digression
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I want to make an important note that admins (especially male admins) are discouraged from managing discussions about homosexual topics because they can be attacked personally, and even sexually harassed. Here's a comment where Nomoskedasticity attacked my sexual identity: I must have struck a nerve of some sort… . It's not right to say something like that to any editor, ever. Jehochman Talk 16:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC) That you took it as an attack on your sexual identity is quite disturbing. Absurd… [On edit:] though on reflection it might help account for the gross overreaction. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC) I'm missing where he "asked your sexual identity" in that comment. Paul B (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC) I didn't say that, which is why you missed it. He originally said something about a living person enjoying some gay sex, and then said that my reaction was because he had "touched a nerve" suggesting that I must be in the closet, or something like that. He even repeats the attack right above, "though on reflection it might help account for the gross overreaction". No, it's that I respect the right to privacy, that it is not nice to use Wikipedia to gossip about whether somebody "enjoys himself some gay sex". It's really neither our nor anybody else's business. However, if a senator pleads guilty to disturbing the peace, after tapping his feet and waving his hand under a bathroom stall divider, that's a relevant fact worth reporting. Jehochman Talk 16:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC) You persist in the obvious misinterpretation?? and "asked" in Paul B's post is an obvious typo for "attacked". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC) You said he "attacked your sexual identity". I originally mistyped the word as a "asked", but quickly changed it to the correct word. Now it seems you have changed my own post back. The implied suggestion that "you must be in the closet" is rather hard to find, I must say. Paul B (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC) In fact it was Nomoskedasticity who changed "attacked" back to "asked" in this edit. [92]. My mistake. Or his. Or both. Paul B (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC) sincere apologies -- it was unintentional and unnoticed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Okay, I'll accept all remarks at face value. If that's not what Nomo meant, very well. Jehochman Talk 16:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Nomo's comment was inappropriate, in tone if not in content. It certainly didn't contribute anything productive to the talk-page discussion, and worsened the already-suboptimal atmosphere there. Jehochman was within his rights to remove it, although ignoring it would have been equally appropriate (if harder to do). I don't understand the rationale for restoring an unhelpful and inflammatory comment after it's been removed. Ideally, we'd just leave the comment removed, and everyone would stand down. MastCell ^Talk 16:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The "touched a nerve" comment could be interpreted as a suggestion that the user it was addressed to was gay and closeted, it could also be interpreted in other ways. But it was injudicious under the circumstances. I would prefer to assume that it was not intended as such an implication. Fluffernutter has a point above that the talk page comment that started this was not as carefully expressed as it could have been, and that even when reporting on negative events that are well sourced (pretty much everyone agrees that hypocrisy is negative, and some think that gay sex, or sex with multiple young partners by an older person is negative) we should do so in a factual manner, and not in one that seems gosspiy or otherwise inappropriate. I don't think that was a good reason to twice delete a mention of a sourced allegation, but this is a discussion where care from all would be a good idea. DES ^(talk) 16:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

So, "inappropriate tone" and "distasteful" are grounds for removing an editor's post from a talk page? I have never read WP:TPO that way, and I imagine very few editors have. Jehochman has now agreed that the material in question can be re-added to the article in question, so apparently it's not a BLP violation after all to discuss whether a certain senator engaged in gay sex. What I'm on about here can be termed "BLP overreaction", and I suggest that removing my post from ANI (where tone was not a problem) falls squarely in that category. I'll pay more attention to tone on these matters, but the overreaction should be acknowledged. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The relevant policy here isn't TPO, but BLP. BLP (and the associated arbcom decision of Footnoted quotes) gives extremely wide latitude to administrators to take any action they deem necessary to enforce BLP policy. Those decisions are still then subject to community evaluation and consensus if disputed, but generally erring on the side of BLP conservatism is the proper approach. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Was removing the ANI post a good action? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If one considers the comment to be ratcheting the situation up even further, then yes.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

User study - returning again

Several invites for a user study has have been posted by Wkmaster (talk · contribs) - ironically, the one I saw was posted on the talk page of WikiProject Spam.

This was discussed at ANI back in September, but I don't see a resolution listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive811#User study?, nor on the user's talk page.

Can anyone confirm if these are WMF sanctioned? It doesn't look like they were last time; and the user involved doesn't appear to have ever responded anywhere when questioned last time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Confirmation here on the user's talk and here on meta. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that - although the timeline from that posting shows the data collection in summer 2013 and data analysis in fall 2013 - so at the very least it needs updating for a new study. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, looks like they changed the dates in the Infobox, but not the section labelled timeline - so only minor issue here appears to be just a clerical cleanup issue still being needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) What is a user study? Is it like an editor review? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, kind of like that, except there is no dedicated review page. Epicgenius (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Oversight

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, I can't use email at the moment. this comment is of several that need wiping from public view.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Revisions deleted, pending through sourcing of content. DES ^(talk) 19:00, 9 January 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:Az-507: POV-pushing, source falsification and edit warring

• On article Nizami Ganjavi: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4.
• Same behavior on article Chovgan: diff5.
• Warned for his/her edits, but he/she does not attend to warnings and edit summaries. He/She changes cited content and replaced it with his/her personal stuffs/POV. --Zyma (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

  This seems to be a a content dispute. You could report it to WP:ANEW, but unless you have tried to discuss it on the article talk page, it may boomerang back to you.- MrX 19:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

NO. It's not a content dispute. His ethnicity was well-sourced by various citations. Also please see the article talk page and its archives. This user changes sourced content. His/Her edits are against the cited sources. The revision is a accepted version and discussed several times on talk page. --Zyma (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The first four diffs show content changes: '[[Persian people|Persian]] poet' to '[[Persian literature|Persian]] poet', a reasonable edit which you reverted three times without attempting any talk page discussions as advised by WP:BRD. That's a content dispute, with some edit warring by both editors. I'm not excusing Az-507's behavior, but you don't seem to have clean hands either. I suggest that you try to politely engage Az-507 on their user talk page and the article's talk pages. That might resolve this to everyone's satisfaction.- MrX 14:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That is certainly a waste of time to do that, in the end Az-507 will ignore what you write, and not answer back. Just like here [93]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

A semiprotection reqest for Final Fantasy VII until it goes away

A dynamic IP and possibly someone's IP sock of sorts[94][95] edits against consensus while refusing discussion, ignoring requests for disscussion by others,[96] and even even vandalizing the talk page when I tried to initoate a discussion.[97] I guess few days should be enough, it's not being hotly edited anyway (the article's pretty much complete, and I even think it should be an FA, but that's another story), thanks. --Niemti (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy VIII and Final Fantasy X too, same story. --Niemti (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Also lol "genre warrior, reported". --Niemti (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Aggressive edit warring is never the right course to take, so that IP editor is in the wrong there, but the point about the content is correct IMO. Cloud is the main protagonist of the game; even the lead of the article it as such, with none of the others given equal billing. Tarc (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course he's the "main" protagonist, and a symbol. Which doesn't change Aerith (who's also the emotional and narrative focal point) and then Tifa are too (and for some time Cloud is not a protagonist at all, when he's in a near vegetable state and reduced to an inanimate object in a wheel chair). /sperg --Niemti (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, however, most games will have both male and female protagonists. Anyway, that debate would not be suitable for this board, so let's not debate here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really, most games have eirther only a male protagonist or no protagonists at all (and this was discussed already and extensively). And yes. --Niemti (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This guy is editwariing without giving a reliable source, no one considers the lovers of ffmain characters the female protagonists. I suggest a ban on genre warrior niemti. 201.68.113.100 (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I know it's (probably) just a dynamic IP, but it's becoming pretty[98] tiresome.[99][100] But I think ding-dong-bannu might work, if someone's willing to play whack-a-mole if it returns. --Niemti (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• See, FF8 probably can be argued a bit more (Rinoa affects the story more than Tifa does); likewise, it can also be argued for FFX as well (after all, the driving force behind the story is Yuna's pilgrimage...) However, since discussion (or attempts thereof) is occurring at the talk page and no subsequent edits, I would suggest that this request be closed without further actions. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Request to block abusive editor 88.81.159.164

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.

---

Left unsigned note on my Talk page about a topic, displaying his homophobia. The term is a derogatory one for lesbian. No doubt angered by some of my work on Daniel Squadron. Intentionally random and homophobic as the editor's only other contribution on Wikipedia is one on a Belgian footballer. thanks!--38.105.132.130 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 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.

Request for blocking of IP user 86.141.200.100

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.

---

Just reporting the abuse of the Raven (BBC TV series) page by IP user 86.141.200.100. He/she keeps changing the page to nonsense words and inappropriate formatting. See his/her contributions page for evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grgrsmth (talk • contribs) 01:47, 10 January 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 editor 84.210.13.40

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.

---

IP editor 84.210.13.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making some rather inflammatory comments at Talk:Circumcision that do not appear to me to be in line with WP:TPG. In particular this editor has made very disparaging characterizations of other editors including:

• this "Tell me why you think you have the right to mutilate other bodies"
• this which includes "The editors of this article think it is okay to violate human rights"
• this comment of questionable relevance which includes "I am sure lots of children will agree to doing blow jobs if they are offered lots of candies"
• this comment that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia
• this comment adds "I have heard that there is lots of zinc in sperm. Maybe male Jewish doctors should start publishing more to their kids about the nutritional benefits of doing blow jobs."

I have left this editor a welcome message and explained my concerns at their User Talk, but as I am involved in the content at this article I'd like an outside admin to see if further action is necessary. Thanks... Zad68 18:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• There's evidence enough here for a 31-hour block to prevent further disruption; perhaps there is more that can or should be done. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Drmies, in particular I'd like a review of the IP's comments at the article Talk page with an eye to redacting personal attacks or other comments that are not in line with WP:TPG. Zad68 18:26, 10 January 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.

Discipline page: habitual edit warring and trolling by member

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.

---

14.198.220.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Please forgive the lack of procedure on this. It is a bit confusing to me. Also, this issue is not so much about the edits themselves. They are not horrible or vandalism. The editors opinions were not shared though and were thus regected. Not really a big deal. The behavior of the editor when his/her edits are unwelcome, however, shows habitual edit warring and disruptive edits over the last few months. <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discipline&action=history> 138.163.106.71 (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Whether or not the IP's edits are disruptive is debatable, despite the warnings (although calling this vandalism is rather ridiculous), but all in all, this seems like a content dispute, and thus should be handled at WP:DRN (worst-case scenario, s/he should possibly be topic-banned from the Discipline article). OAN, I find it interesting that you warned him/her about a possible block, yet in this thread you didn't mention anything about a block. (BTW, the dispute seems to be completely between different IPs; have any of you considered creating an account?) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Striking my earlier comment per my comment below. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Erpert for confirming that "whether or not the IP's edits are disruptive is debatable".

Therefore, it reveals the fact that 138.163.106.71 does not engage in discussion nor a single reason (not even a single line..) to decide that s/he should disrupt(rv, s/he claims) the edit, the claim that the multiple rvs is not in good faith(hence vandalism) is appropriate.

138.163.106.71 in my talk page you claim that,

It is clear that the reasons for this have been explained to you by multiple people multiple times.

It sounds like you are doing justice, but I would love to see if you are able to quote even one explanation out of the 2 (multiple, you claim) editors, you and 24.16.101.56. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This is just inanity. Did anyone try to post on the article's talk page to work this out? Epicgenius (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Inanity, I agree.

They have questioned me on my talk, but not even a single line does WP:FOC. They ask me why I feel authorized, ask me to justify my "authority", ask me how old I am. I ask them that my edit is legitimate and I don't know why they revert the edit (except for vandalism, of course), so I ask them to present argument(s) against the content of the edit. They may do so on the talk page on Discipline. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussing this on the article's talk page would make the most sense, actually; I didn't realize that no one tried that yet. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:13, 9 January 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 by Safwwefe sock

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.

---

Safwwefe (talk · contribs) has been community-banned since 2009 for making a graphic death threat against President Obama. For the better part of this fall and winter, he has seen fit to troll on my talk page, as I was the one who indef'd him while I was still an admin under the moniker Blueboy96. By way of this edit, he has admitted that all socks flagged in both his own SPI and the SPI for Darkstriker152 are all him. This morning, I come home from work to discover an email from his latest sock, Blueboy96sucks (talk · contribs), saying that the trolling and harassment will continue.

I'm here asking that all socks of Safwwefe be reblocked with email and talkpage access disabled. Also, if any available checkuser would be so kind as to lower the boom on the underlying IP, it would be much appreciated. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 13:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I went through the SPI and made sure they all had talk page and e-mail access revoked. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 8 January 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.

Interesting that the actual threat was never rev-deled. If nothing else, I would think it's a BLP-vio. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably because it needed to be visible in order to be shown to the authorities. If the guy that did it was brought to court but the threat was revdeleted, well, there goes the evidence. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Damiens.rf refuses to engage in Discussion and insists in edit warring

User:Damiens.rf is starting an edit war over the article José N. Gándara Cartagena. I have reverted his edits and invited him to discuss his edits first (the evidence is HERE) and his response is that he does not need "my permission". (See HERE.) Then, contrary to standard procedure, he went to my Talk Page (HERE) to discuss there, seeking safe harbor under WP:OWN. Beyond the fact that there is no proof of my violating WP:OWN (I have the articles in my automatically added to my Watchlist as I edit them), any discussion seeking Consensus, as is the case here, tradionally occurs in the article's Talk Page space, not at an editor's personal Talk Page, so other editors can contribute as well. Perhaps someone can go to my Talk Page (or his) and talk some sense into Damiens. Thanks.

What is going on in this case cannot be judged without This Sorely Needed Background: Ever since User:Caribbean H.Q. reported Damiens to this ANI HERE for uncivility and Wikihounding of other editors in the Puerto Rico WP:PUR project (I was one of the affected Puerto Rico project editors), Damiens started a campaign to target only Puerto Rico-related articles, especially biographies, as shown HERE. I reverted Damiens edits at the biography of Raúl Gándara Cartagena (the brother of the José N. Gándara Cartagena above) and Damiens did start a discussion in the Talk page of that article, Raúl Gándara Cartagena's, AS SHOWN HERE and Damiens and I are now discussing that matter there. (BTW, Damiens had failed to start similar Talk Page discussions in other two PR bio articles (I eventually did) that he edited, but I won't get into those details here.) However, when it came to the José N. Gándara Cartagena article, Damiens now appears to have changed his mind about getting engaged in any discussion on other articles (See Talk Page at José N. Gándara Cartagena.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jos%C3%A9_N._G%C3%A1ndara). Just for the record, these are both articles Damiens had never edited before.

BTW, in his 5-year history with Wikipedia he has created ONE (1) article [SEE HERE]. As such, his love and joy appear to be interfering with other editors' work by disrupting their work, and do so under the disguise of improving things, especifically WP:TAGBOMBing as can be seen at José N. Gándara Cartagena. While I admire some of Damiens work (admittedly very little of Damiens work), there is a serious problem when someone chooses to behave as disruptively as he is behaving. Basically, Damiens started tagging Puerto Rico articles in retaliation for someone reporting him to ANI as linked to above.

I don't want to raise any false alarms here, and Damiens may in fact come to grips with the fact that not discussing is not an option. But since Damiens and I are already involved in an edit war over Raúl Gándara Cartagena as seen here and appear headed for a second edit war yet as can be seen HERE, hopefully third party involvement will prove it unnecessary to file a 3RR. I have informed Damiens of this Discussion about him. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wikignomes typically don't create articles on their own. They tend to focus on cleaning and doing minor changes to existing pages. Content Creation != Editing Wikipedia. Please consider trying your report again listing concrete "He Did This which is against THAT policy" instead of throwing a great many disorganized arguments against the wall in hopes taht something sticks... Hasteur (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a beautiful categorization of Damiens work! However, the link you provided Wikignomes doesn't describe at all what he does. We all love editors who are fixing typos, correcting poor grammar, creating redirects, adding categories, and repairing broken links, etc but nothing in that Wikignome article describes what Damines does - and which infuriates editors as seen on the Other Section Above. Mercy11 (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing particularly contentious about Damiens's editing on this article, which appears to be mostly a consolidation of references into a more compact display, consistent with community practice, and noting sourcing issues over geocities references (which generally raise SPS issues). I suggest the OP review WP:RS and WP:REFNAME. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to when you say "see nothing particularly contentious about Damiens's editing on THIS article"? Because THIS ARTICLE HERE shows 13 points of contention. Perhaphs you care to elaborate Here and There as well, but and answer on the "this article" would solve some ambiguity. Mercy11 (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the article. Your tendentious wall of text, however, does not make Damiens's rather routine and consistent=with-community-practice contributions contentious. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point: The issue here is not whether Damiens's "rather routine and consistent=with-community-practice" edits can justify his engaging in an edit war. (That's a collorary of "engaging in an edit war because he thinks his edits are right and has already been addressed by policy at WP:EW.) The issue here is whether or not he is violation policy by not following WP:Dispute resolution protocols already in place.

Also, though 1/2 a screen of text is not what most of us would call a "wall of text", that would be AGF issue because my 1/2 screen "wall of text" was simply intended to facilitate Damiens response. Just because others (you?) wouldn't appreciate that, doesn't mean it is wrong. It's a matter perspective - a matter of seeing the glass 1/2 full rather than 1/2 empty. It's too bad you perceived it negatively.

Unaddressed in your comment above is that you, too, have joined the revert craze, instead of joining the open discussion. I came here asking for wisdom and seeking enlightment - I did not need to come here if all I wanted was to go on reverting, edit warring, etc., but with your revert action you seem to be tacitly saying that revert is what Damien is supposed to do when he sees edits that he just disagrees with (even when the edits come with an open discussion in the article's Talk Page in which he refuses to participate), rather than participate in Discussion that seeks consensus. Mercy11 (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Much of what Damien is doing with combining citations (the ''<ref name='' stuff) is so simple and so routine that it can be done with a bot. Tagging the page for citation problems requires human judgement, but Damien's doing just what's routine with Geocities; it's a self-published source that's generally not reliable. Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right but you seem to be missing the point. The issue here is not whether we can justify Damiens engaging in en edit war because he (or, admittedly, me for that matter - but let's bear in mind I am the one coming here seeking a source of higher wisdom, not Damines who appears to care less), Damiens, thinks his edits are right (combining citations, tagging SPS's and RS's, etc.). The issue here is whether or not he is violation policy by not following WP:Dispute resolution protocols already in place. Mercy11 (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Mercy11 makes much the same arguments in a section toward the top of this page[101], which really should be combined with this one and/or hatted, as I think that one has played itself out. Coretheapple (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Except that you are not an uninvolved party yourself, so your proposal may be tainted with self-service. Nothing personal. So I disagree. Instead propose that the page be returned to its per-edit warring form of months ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_N._G%C3%A1ndara&oldid=562097117) and the page be protected until the parties Discuss. Mercy11 (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Excuse me? The sum total of my "involvement" was in commenting on the section that you created above. Coretheapple (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• I did not create that section; User:Caribbean H.Q did. Nothing personal, just correcting a fact.

Still, I propose the article (1) be reverted to its original version, (2) be protected from editing, and (3) that a 3-7 day discussion/cool off period be allowed for the parties to discuss and reach agreement. That's not much to ask: that's enforcing Wikipedia policy: Plus it's fair and square - not dictatorial as Wolfowitz did with his revert that was based on his perspective of who was right rather than on the fact that we were both already edit warring. Nothing personal, just facts. Mercy11 (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

There's already agreement on this article, from everybody who's weighed in on the substance but you. The Damiens version of the article is better, and more consistent with policy and practice, than yours. Your removal of the tag concerning self-published sources was grossly inappropriate. Arguing at tendentious length and casting aspersions on editors who reject your position is inappropriate. WP:CONSENSUS calls for you to accept the community's conclusion here, not for the community to wait until you accept its position. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Disagreeing with the unfounded charges you've made against Damiens does not an involved editor make. I've reviewed the edits that he made to the article in question and I found them to be constructive, your reverts not to be constructive, and do not believe that what you suggest is necessary. Coretheapple (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think we should speedily close this thread and merge it with this thread. That thread is long enough, sure, but why have two open threads about the same general situation? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 03:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Why have two threads open? (1) Because the other thread is not my complaint - I am only a opinion voice there. (2) Because this thread is about an edit war in a specific instance of a specific article that needs to be dealt with the specific traditional EW tools, whereas the other thread is about Wikihounding and uncivility. So the two threads, albeit targeting the same editor, are not about the same "general situation" as you state since wikihounding and uncivility (the other thread) are vastly different from a Dispute/Edit Warring. We should really tell it as it is: the only thing in common between the two threads is Mr. Damiens and that to me is not strong enough reason to close anything. In any event that other thread is at the top of the heap and, thus, sure to be closed any minute now anyway. Unless there is a policy/practice about faster than lightening thread-closing as a goal I don't see the need for closing anything before its due time. The other thread is over a week old; this one was born yesterday - thanks, I argue, to Mr. Damiens retaliatory actions. He has done this to his peril. Are we somehow in the mercy business? Mercy11 (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Mercy, the only disruption here is the removal of valid tags and the deletion of reference mergers. On your statement about protection — aside from vandalism by someone with a dynamic IP address, the only time we protect is when multiple people are disrupting the page. In this situation, exactly one person is being disruptive, so if the problem continues, the solution will be someone blocking you rather than protecting the page. Please start listening before it gets to that point. Nyttend (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

One might argue that it's already to that point. Consensus suggests that Damien's version is firmly supported by policy, and that Mercy's version is not. There is no support whatsoever for any sort of protection or sanction against Damiens, and Mercy is inching into WP:IDHT territory. The best thing that could happen to Mercy11, at this point, would be the closure of this thread. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I came here for enlightment so, for the sake of collaboration, I admit I probably went too far in reverting all of his edits. Frankly, from the start I stated to Damiens I was willing to accept #2, 3, and 6 (after getting his side). As for #7-12, and despite what the WP:PG say, I was willing to WP:IAR and come to agreement there as well. That left #1 and #4 to discuss. So let me get some substance: On #1, where he tagged that 1-paragrapgh/3-sentence lede article for having a lede that was too long? My only assumption there AGF is he meant too short. But even too short makes no sense since the article was only 10K in size. And how about #4, where he placed CN and SPS banners on such a short article after also tagging every single paragraph? Do we encourage that? Wouldn't that constitute WP:Tag bombing? Most importantly on #4, his claim of SPS is not valid since the subject has been dead for 50 yrs and the source is from the library of a school named after him based on newspaper articles with publ dates & pages? Are you guys on this thread supporting that too, and if so, where did I err there? (I ignore #13 because it is procedurally dependent on #4) And, last, what would you have done differently (not, what would you not have done - I have already heard that loud and clear here) or to follow when an editor disagrees with another editor's edits. (I don't need (please) a WP:DISPUTE, I do need specific counsel on this from you more experienced contributors.) Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Just one point. You seem to misunderstand WP:SPS. A self-published source is not a source-text written by the article's subject. It seems to me that's what you understand of SPS. If I'm mistaken, sorry. My bad. --damiens.rf 16:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, an SPS is a source where any user can add content and typically without any editorial control (Wikipedia would be an example of that). You're talking about autobiographical sources which, should one have existed for this person, probably would be okay. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

comment Mercy11 needs to disengage and stop creating conflict with Damiens.rf. Their poor understanding of not a few guidelines & policies is compounded by WP:IDHT,WP:DEADHORSE, and WP:OWNERship tendencies.94.194.24.46 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: New anonynympus IP account that --from his summary comments HERE-- seems to know his way around WP extremely well. Dubious? Maybe even a disengenuous sockpuppet perhaps??? Mercy11 (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have edited WP for years, always as an anon ip. Certainly my knowledge of WP & it's policies surpasses yours, as your behaviour across several articles and on this very page illustrate. If you suspect I'm operating as a sock then take it to WP:SPI. As I'm sure you are aware unsubstantiated accusations of socking is a breach of WP:AGF and probably WP:INCIVIL as well. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

user:QuackGuru either WP:STALKING me or WP:TAGTEAMing with user:BullRangifer

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:Brozhnik Recently added a biased study from Media Matters for America to the Fox News Channel controversies article. Media Matters for America, for the record, has been trying to destroy Fox for years and recently claimed that it won. I removed this "study" because it was not accompanied by any other sources to establish weight and because of the inherent bias that MMfA has to begin with. Without any secondary weight this article would be filled with nothing but partisan screed from MMfA as that is almost all that they have done for the better part of the past decade.

It was restored by User:Bullrangifer twice and then restored by user:QuackGuru almost immediately Quack has never edited this page before and it appears to be stalking or at the very minimum tagteaming. Arzel (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like BullRangifer has never edited this page either. They recently were baiting me on my own talk page. This appears to be related. Arzel (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru notified Arzel (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC) BullRangifer notified. Arzel (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I added the article to my watchlist last year back in December. QuackGuru (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea how long it's been on my extensive watchlist. Right now my watchlist has this notification at the top: "You have 8,956 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." (I need to clean it up!)

Arzel, nothing you do on Wikipedia is sacred. You have no right to privacy, or to carry on your only activity, which is to whitewash right wing articles, not by actual editing, but by deleting properly sourced content, simply because it is critical. You have been informed many times that biased RS are proper to use in most articles, especially ones describing controversies, like the one in question. The article could not exist without such content from such sources, but that's really what you want, right?! In fact, very little would be left of Wikipedia if we banned biased sources. We would totally fail in our mission, which is to document the sum total of human knowledge, which includes controversies which are usually documented in biased sources. We'd only be telling one side of the story. You keep refusing to accept that aspect of the RS policy, using "biased source" as an excuse to delete content and sources you don't like. You have thrown a boomerang here, and now highlighted your nefarious activities. Calls for you to be topic banned from these articles have been made numerous times, and each time you have filed an AN/I case, you have lost. It's time for that topic ban. You have certainly received enough warnings. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

True enough, biased RS can sometimes be used. But the problem here is that Media Matters isn't a "biased RS"; it's just biased. It's not a reliable source according to any possible reading of our policy on sources. Media Matters is WP:QUESTIONABLE, and should only be used with great caution. But I didn't detect a lot of caution in your knee-jerk reverts, Bull.

Also note that Bullrangifer rests his case upon a straw man. Arzel hasn't argued simply that the material can't be in the article; he argues that it needs vetting by actual reliable sources so that a determination of due weight can be made per NPOV. Without that, inclusion of the material in the article constitutes prima facie original research.

Personally, I find it very interesting that we have two editors here who are edit-warring, one at 3RR and the other at 2RR, and one is looking for a topic ban but neither editor has availed themselves of discussion on the Talk page. Jump the gun much? Roccodrift (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• comment A quick google search, shows that contrary to the claim by Arzel that the source is not accompanied by any other source is wrong. See http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/10/climate-denial-fox-media-matters Prokaryotes (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Arzel dismisses MMA as having an "inherent bias", and Arzel dismisses the MMA report itself as biased, but Wikipedia does not require its reliable sources to be free from bias. This looks like a boomerang complaint which highlights the harmful and disruptive editing practices of Arzel. Binksternet (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I agree that it looks like we're in boomerang country. Worst come to worst, I would weakly support a topic ban on Arzel for all Republican-centered articles (and this is coming from a Democrat). Yes, Arzel, the references may be biased, but Wikipedia doesn't reject biased sources; in fact, it supports them. (This also works in concert with WP:V.)

OAN: Roccodrift, I don't know exactly what point your comments were trying to make, but please stop stirring the pot. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet more straw man arguments. I see but a single editor here (other than myself) who actually read and understood what Arzel said, and who bothered to address the point he actually made.

Oh, and BTW... pointing out fallacious arguments is not "stirring the pot". Roccodrift (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment: Can we please add the small "f" in MMfA, as MMA has it own issues, and we sure don't want to accidentally mix them together (although, that would make for an interesting juxtaposition) ES&L 10:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • We can use MMfA in most cases although of course we should attribute it. Anyone thinking that we can't use a source simply because it has a pov needs to read our policies again. Loads of discussions at RSN by the way - of course those with a pov opposing it would like it banned as a source, but if we did that we'd lose a lot of sources that actually meet WP:RS. Vetting is appropriate for scholarly sources but I don't see it as appropriate here for the MMfA study. But the issue that was brought up was about WP:Hounding (we need to avoid the use of the word 'stalking) which is defined as " threats, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks, intimidation, or posting personal information." That hasn't happened here so this doesn't belong here and should be closed. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that pretty much every ignored one basic aspect which is that MMfA has a ton of crap about FNC and that they have a dedicated interest in seeing FNC destroyed. Apparently that doesn't matter to the familiar crowd defending this type of partisan editing. I also love that another lefty outlet (Mother Jones) is used to try and give weight. Furthermore, this is WP:HOUNDING then as BullRangifer has not edited this page and was recently at my talk page WP:BAITing me. Arzel (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur that BullRangifer was at your talkpage and was baiting you...I removed one of his posts from there myself. That said, all of you really need to cease this highly partisan and polarizing bickering that is going on across numerous article spaces, and remind everyone involved in edit warring that 3RR is not an entitlement.--MONGO 15:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was a pretty simple situation of removing a biased study from a biased source which had no WP:WEIGHT behind it. Editors often try to add obscure pieces of information from MMfA that has had little or zero coverage anywhere else, so I was a little surprised to see this response. Without this monitoring that article would be little more than an attack page from MMfA on FNC. Arzel (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is Arzel. This is an editor that is NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather to wage ideological battles across a spectrum of politically-related articles. I have tried to discuss this with the Arzel, but he has consistently rebuffed me, usually piling on further insults. His article contributions consist almost entirely removing other editor's edits. It's no surprise that he has such a poor grasp of policy—he hardly ever creates content! That he so often accuses others of bias and POV-pushing ironically exposes his own struggle with objectivity. I am going to start an RFC/U on Arzel the moment I find another user that will certify it, because I'm tired of seeing wholesale deletion of content backed by shabby interpretations of policy and personal attacks.- MrX 15:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not just about adding and especially not about coatracking. A valid argument could be made that his removals are fully encyclopedic and the fact remains that the onus is on those adding negative information to use impeccable secondary sources. Media Matters is a highly partisan source.--MONGO 15:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Arzel has taken this to WP:RSN where he has taken the opportunity to accuse Bullrangifer again. And we use partisan sources frequently - they don't have to be 'impeccable', they do have to be significant enough to pass WP:NPOV. And, shock horror, we even allow liberal sources as well as conservative ones (calling it 'lefty' just shows political bias). Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Doug, please do not make false statements against me. BullRangifer tried to Bait me on my talk page and then followed me to that page. Furhermore, I never use conservative sources, so don't give me that crap either. And this is not just a biased source, but an extrememly biased source with almost no other WP:WEIGHT for support and then reinserted by an editor that was following me around. You accept this behaviour? Really? What part of WP core policies am I violating here? Whar part of WP core policies are you upholding? Arzel (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say you used conservative sources. I often follow editors I'm dubious about. I sometimes notice that another editor I respect is concerned about someone and take a look myself. That's a good thing. I'm supporting RNS and NPOV. You are simply wrong about this. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic Ban

• Support Topic ban on Republican and Democrat articles, broadly construed. This is becoming disruptive. KonveyorBelt 17:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I get followed around by another editor and I should be banned from Republican and Democrat articles? FNC is news channel, so I am not even sure I understand this logic. Arzel (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Democratic, please: note the "ic". See Democrat Party (epithet). Drmies (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ive always throught that oversold as an epithet. Democratic aligned groups, neutral sources regularly refer to "Democrat" or "Democrats" (The democratics? Is a democratic? sounds awful), including a plethora of uses that way in our current article, as well as the party itself http://www.democrats.org/ https://www.democratsabroad.org/ http://www.yda.org/ etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Please tell us what other epithets of groups that you do not belong to are "oversold". — goethean 19:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Grammar, dear Gaijin42: it's the use of "democrat" as an adjective that is deemed inappropriate. There is nothing wrong with "Gaijin is a card-carrying Democrat". I think we had this up at ANI, quite some time ago. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Arzel that the addition was inappropriate. Media Matters is a highly partisan body and should not be treated as an independent source and in this case it was also a primary source. This is a case of poor sourcing being used to support material unduly favoring a partisan view of a news channel. At the very least the material should have been rewritten given the nature of the source. Repeatedly reinserting it without any change is POV-pushing. While Arzel is overreacting a bit, he is not wrong to take issue with the blatantly partisan edits being made to that article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban on republican/democratic American politics, broadly construed. I'm honestly astonished it hasn't happened already. N^oformation ^Talk 18:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• There are two issues here. The first is a content/sourcing issue regarding MMfA. This issue has been litigated endlessly at the reliable sources noticeboard, and it might be useful to review those discussions rather than re-arguing the case here. I'll break my own rule and offer my 2 cents here: MMfA is clearly a highly partisan source and should be used sparingly and cautiously, if at all, like any highly partisan source.

  The second issue is a conduct issue. In that regard, like Noformation, I'm surprised that Arzel hasn't been topic-banned at some point in the past. He edits Wikipedia solely to advance an ideological agenda. Really, check his contribution history, and go back as far you want: that's all he does here. He's also a dedicated edit-warrior who routinely games the system by going right up to 3RR (and occasionally over). There was clear community support for a topic ban from Tea-Party related articles, although that noticeboard thread was subsumed into the related ArbCom case. He's a classic tendentious agenda-driven edit-warrior. MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Okay, now I strongly support a topic ban. Arzel, what part of "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" are you not understanding? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• What part of "reliable" are you having trouble understanding? It is a non sequitur to speak to bias before reliability is established. In this case, it is not. Quite the opposite, in fact. Roccodrift (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions against User:Arzel. As User:MastCell said, Arzel is correct about MMFA. I see no evidence that Arzel's other edits have not been equally correct, even if they have focussed on improving Wikipedia's coverage of the conservative rather than liberal POV. There are plenty of editors and admins who already focus on the latter type of cleanup tasks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• You're conflating the two issues which I took pains to separate, and thus misrepresenting what I said. My personal view of MMfA as a source is, like Arzel's, pretty dim. That's a content issue, to be solved by the usual means. There is no excuse for Arzel's conduct in addressing this dispute, which consists of edit-warring up to 3RR and then posting a risible accusation of tag-teaming. And this isn't an isolated incident; it's his M.O. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting anything. Either Arzel is correct about MMFA or incorrect, and your comment (which anyone can read directly above) suggests the former. Feel free to clarify your comments, but you might try doing so without flinging around accusations of misrepresentation.

There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline regarding tag teaming, as far as I know. So I would advise caution before dismissing such complaints as laughable. According to WP:Tag teaming, one form of it is to coordinate edits so as to avoid 3RR, and that's exactly what Arzel has attempted to document.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Such an accusation (tag teaming) may not have a guideline, but it is covered by our Assume Good Faith policy. Such an accusation, without clear proof of such coordination, is wrong and a blockable offense. Arzel can reasonably expect their edits to be watched by those who have the same articles on their watchlists. POV warriors should be watched, and when their editing violates policy, should be dealt with, both through their edits being reverted, and them being issued appropriate warnings. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding its status as a RS, the discussion at RS/N is confirming it is a RS, especially for this situation, where other RS are backing them up and citing them. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I think a topic ban would need to be more carefully defined. The proposed ban would not necessarily prevent the same tendentious reverting on articles like Fox News Channel controversies, Phil Robertson, Megyn Kelly, Hydraulic fracturing in the United States, Focus on the Family, PPACA, Ayn Rand, Ender's Game (film), etc.- MrX 19:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• A reasonable scope would be "American politics". Such a topic ban would provide an opportunity to see whether Arzel has any interest in this project beyond its potential as an ideological platform. MastCell ^Talk 19:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, that does seem reasonable, provided that it is broadly construed to include any article that could be interpreted as having any political aspect to it.- MrX 20:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. Arzel may have potential in other areas, but here their personal political POV controls their editing, and their failure to understand RS is problematic. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban for Arzel as groundless and retaliatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roccodrift (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support sanctions against QuackGuru, as his editing is reckless, disruptive and tendentious. Roccodrift (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support a permanent topic ban of Arzel from American politics, broadly construed, per my earlier comments.- MrX 20:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment MMfA is an advocacy organization and is not independent of the subject. It should be treated as a primary source. Instead, we should be using third-party reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, they're a media watchdog group, which kind of makes them a de facto third party.- MrX 20:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hear here, the fact that they proffer a critical view of a favored source does not disqualify them as RS, in context. if attribution is deemed necessary for controversial commentary, that would appear to be a separate issue.

Since FOX News is itself a recognized partisan news service, it is to be expected that organizations opposing their views would appear. Where does Wikipedia stand, between them?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It's rather odd that Arzel wishes to remove opposing POV from an article about FNC's controveries. Without such sources and content, there would be not article, but that would certainly gratify Arzel. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@MrX: Only comment, no, they arn't a media watchdog group. Their own about page says, "Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation - news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda - every day, in real time."--v/r - TP 20:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't like their POV but doesnt that page back that they are a watchdog group? (albeit one that only watches one side) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)If our article on them is correct, they are "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation". Advocacy organizations are not reliable for anything but their opinion in articles about or related to themselves. Just stick to third-party reliable sources. It's not hard, guys. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but FOX News spins bills itself as "Fair and Balanced", so it's not an advocacy group. — goethean 20:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a content discussion and not proper for this page, but it's a primary source. Such a source could be reliable if presenting a POV attributed for stating the opinion of MMfA, but such would need to fall into WEIGHT for the overall coverage of controversies and have it relayed in multiple secondary sources to make it worth any mention. Then you may need to provide a balancing pov that covered other polls regarding media bias. Morphh ^(talk) 20:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Huh? The argument to support a topic ban is weak at best. If that is the goal then I suggest an RfcU first so that diffs can be presented to support such a measure.--MONGO 21:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• This will happen sooner or later. Mastcell's characterisation is spot on. His allies will cry foul, but if those views are recognised for what they are… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Just so we're clear. It is sad how obviously partisan the voting is on this otherwise. The people supporting a topic ban are seemingly without fail people whose views would be to the left of Arzel.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • To be fair, when you are on an extreme end of political leanings, most people will be to one side of you. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Being Republican is at the extreme far-right in the context of Wikipedia editors, but (being there myself) I don't think it's really adequate justification for hounding such people into oblivion, or mobbing them with generalized grievances. Arzel is owed a debt of gratitude for not letting the other side trample NPOV at will.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Fortunately, no one is suggesting that Arzel be banned because he's a Republican. The issue is that he's a habitual edit-warrior who treats Wikipedia as an ideological battleground. The belief that one's political views are under-represented on Wikipedia does not excuse tendentious editing. MastCell ^Talk 07:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
        • People are suggesting that he be banned from Republican- and Democratic-related articles. If Arzel encounters multitudinous editors who are constantly slanting such articles primarily in one direction, and Arzel seeks to counter it and seeks to promote NPOV, then we could certainly label him as a habitual edit-warrior, and remove him as an obstacle. Or, in a case like this, we could thank Arzel for coming to this notice-board instead of perpetuating an edit war, and thank him also for correctly identifying MMFA as a suboptimal partisan source. In other words, this is far from a black-and-white situation. Even if it is decided that Arzel is a tendentious edit-warrior (with which I disagree), I have zero confidence that Wikipedia would deal with the editors on the other side in an evenhanded manner. Additionally, Wikipedia should think seriously about how it can reduce edit-warring, for example by getting more serious about its consensus policy; when there is consensus that a part of a Wikipedia article (that previously was supported by consensus) needs improvement, then that is no justification to start changing the article (following WP:BRD) until there is consensus about how to change it --- people who start doing so ought to be blocked instead of allowed to run rampant. A cynic might say that Wikipedia promotes edit wars so that Wikipedia management can then eliminate the side it likes least. Likewise, we often have editors edit-warring under the belief that some other policy takes precedence over WP:Consensus, but shouldn't the meaning and application of those other policies be determined (during the process of editing an article) by consensus?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't consider myself a leftist by any stretch but that's the false dichotomy of American politics; from a worldwide perspective, American conservatism is pretty fringe and pretty extreme. Compared to Azrel I might as well carry a red card and be hung for treason, but in any modern, Western society I'm right in the middle. N^oformation ^Talk 00:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If by "modern, Western society" you mean Europe, then I supposed you would be in the middle. Of course, Europe is on average left-of-center so being in the middle would still make you left-of-center. Suffice to say, your political biases are markedly different from those of Arzel and that is the case with the one who proposed the topic ban and others supporting it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What ever my political biases are they differ not just in form but in intensity. That is, I don't edit political articles and I really don't care about politics. My support of the topic ban is based on Azrel's behavior as a POV pushing SPA with an obvious agenda. And considering that most Wikipedians are not right wingers, any topic ban support against a right winger is likely going to be comprised of a majority of non-right wingers; what else is to be expected, that people on the right can only be disciplined by others on the right? In any case, that one isn't a right winger does not render their support unfairly biased nor moot, it just means that I'm not blind to the concerted effort of a few conservatives to present right wing perspectives as though they are in the mainstream of intellectual discourse, and to white wash what most normal people can see is in the extreme—it's false WP:BALANCE. And no, I don't just mean Europe. There are plenty of modern, "westernized" countries in South America, Central America, North America (e.g. Canada), the Indian Subcontinent, Australia, New Zealand, etc, in which I'm right in the middle. Even by American standards I'm basically a centrist so long as we aren't defining the moderate right as the tea party. That there exists extreme right wingers in the US who hold power does not shift the mean that far to the right for the rest of the world. N^oformation ^Talk 01:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: while some people are being specific about the target of the Topic Ban, others are not. The subheading is simply "topic ban" - does that refer to QuackGuru, Bullrangifer, Arzel - or all three? StAnselm (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. I haven’t evaluated his edits enough to see whether they individually have merit or are POV violations and I remember ArbCom didn’t find any fault with his edits in the Tea Party case. I will say, however, that the pattern of practically only involve themselves in political controversies (mostly in the form of reverts) is concerning and something that the community should discourage; based on Arzel’s latest edits, I see few signs of Arze actually building the encyclopedia in the form of content building or useful maintainance. Iselilja (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If his edits have merit, then what's the problem with him focusing on his area of interest and expertise? And if we're going to start discouraging people from focusing on political articles, I have no confidence that Wkkipedia would end up doing so in a politically neutral way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It’s not the fact that he focuses on politics that is a problem; but that he only involves himself in contentious articles/disputes. There is a lot of articles within the field of politics that could need improvement and that a willing and constructive editor would be able to improve without getting into conflicts all the time. Iselilja (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia would like to deal with a particularly contentious article "X" by saying that no one may make more than ten (10) non-minor edits to that article per week, or something like that, then fine. Everyone who exceeds the limit would get topic-banned. No problem. But to select particular editors for that treatment seems inapt.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as retaliatory. GregJackP Boomer! 00:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all sanctions per insufficient evidence. Very few diffs have been provided; the accusations of tag-teaming don't seem to have any substance. Also close this thread since people have been supporting and opposing a very ill-defined topic ban. It has not been made clear who is supposed to be banned. Anyone who supports a ban is welcome to open a new thread with proper diffs. StAnselm (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of Arzel on all subjects related to American politics, broadly construed (including talk pages, where much of their disruption occurs), per MastCell and several others. Arzel's focus isn't the main problem, but their consistent pattern of whitewashing by deleting properly sourced content, often using the bogus "biased source" excuse, which is against policy. We use biased sources here. Period. Without them we would have no articles about controversies, and we would be violating NPOV by not covering all significant sides of any controversy. Arzel simply lacks competence to edit because of their consistent failure to UNDERSTAND our RS policy, and consistent failure to LEARN when repeatedly told how to apply it. Having a political POV is okay, but when it controls their editing, as it does here, instead of letting the RS control it, we have a POV warrior, and we don't need anymore of them. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any topic ban of Arzel. Just noticed this in looking over the accusation against me. Normally I try to avoid this page since I'm not a particularly litigious toward fellow editors. What's going on here? Some sort attempt to purge politically conservative editors? Nasty business. Don't know the specifics of this situation but looking at BullRangifer's comment above I see that he's on one of his If you don't agree with me about Wikipedia policy you are not a true Wikipedian rants. To address his point. Sure, we can use clearly politically biased sources at times but that doesn't free us to ignore other rules and guidelines. We still prefer more neutral sources to less neutral ones for factual information and we still observe due weight in crafting our articles. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Nowhere have I said that you have to agree with me; just agree with policy. There are just some very fundamental policies and attitudes which are required of experienced editors which demonstrate that they have competence and are able to edit in an NPOV manner, none of which require using sources without a POV or bias. We use biased sources all the time. When in doubt, we attribute them and frame the content properly, but simply deleting them because they are "biased" (Arzel's favorite excuse) is not according to policy. That's policy he's disagreeing with, not me. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

NOPE. What you are really saying is agree with my understanding of Wikipedia policy and I have no reason to believe that your understanding of Wikipedia policy is any better than Arzel's. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Duh! Is there any other possibility? Can you name a single person on the planet who doesn't mean it in that manner, including yourself? The important point is that my understanding of policy seems to be backed up by most experienced editors, and it is the consensus of editors which creates and defines our policies. I've been around here (starting with a few years of wikignome IP editing before creating an account) long enough to build that consensus and define some of our policies, IOW I've been here since before some of these policies were even formulated. I can remember when there were less than 500,000 articles on the whole of Wikipedia, in all languages. It was a big day when the English Wikipedia passed the 200,000 article mark. For me it was great to be able to contribute in my English mother tongue, since my daily language had been (and still is) Danish for many years. Those were the days. Things were very different then. Now wikilawyering has taken over and yet we still have editors who are far from newbies, like you and Arzel, who still don't understand basic policies. You should understand these things. Dang, one should be required to pass a Wikipedia Drivers License exam before being allowed to drive here ! (sarcasm) -- Brangifer (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah the good old days!! Problem is being here from the beginning tends to induce feelings of OWNERSHIP that even great white hunters aren't entitled to. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: MMfA is a reliable source and widely referenced by other RS. It's the first time i read claims that MMfA would be biased (above by some users). MMfA is reporting on the content of Fox here and there appears to be nothing wrong with this study. Affords to remove information regarding content evaluation appears disruptive and i don't understand the point. If Fox wants to change their image in those regards they could do this. But hiding facts is just a lame way to enforce an agenda. Prokaryotes (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Although I agree, this is at WP:RSN and should be discussed there. This thread should probably be closed and an RfC/U started. Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I tend to agree, but the boomerang has been cast by Arzel (for the umpteenth time at various AN/I threads, all with him losing), and it has definitely circled round and hit him big time again. This time it really needs to end with a topic ban. We can't just drop this and allow him to continue. (BTW, the RS/N consensus is that Arzel is wrong, yet again.) -- Brangifer (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• That's a strange thing to say given that the RS/N discussion is trending towards it not being a reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this has all become downright confusing, so let's start over and keep things separate (and Badmintonhist, your baiting really isn't helping). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose any topic ban of Arzel., media matters is about as fair and balanced as fox, using one to sling mud at the other is absurd. [102] by his own admission been a drug user, who has been delusional and who reportedly is playing with guns and thinks there are assassins out to get him Darkstar1st (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What is truly mind-boggling is that you think that adding that link and those comments contributes to this conversation. — goethean 16:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban for User:Arzel on political articles

• As listed above, I support a topic ban if not on all political articles, just Republican-centered articles. Biased sources are allowed on Wikipedia, whether s/he likes it or not, and s/he has gone to great lengths to challenge anyone who doesn't agree with him/her regardless of consensus; in fact, his/her starting this very thread appears to have made him/her yet another victim of the boomerang. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, a simple glance at Arzel's user page shows that he identifies as male. StAnselm (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per the reasons I gave above.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 08:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment- A slightly different TBAN proposal is unlikely to be productive. I suggest closing this entire thread and using a structured RFC/U to present the case. I am going to start drafting something today.- MrX 13:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Arzel is an energetic advocate for what he sees as greater neutrality in politically charged articles, opposing the liberal/progressive assumptions that tend to pervade many of them. At base, that is the reason for this politically inspired proposed ban, not any supposed failure on his part to understand Wiki policies. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "Opposing the liberal/progressive assumptions"? That's exactly my point; Wikipedia is here to show all viewpoints, not just viewpoints that he (or anyone else) specifically likes. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well I guess I should be more explicit. By "liberal/progressive assumptions that tend to pervade" many articles I mean the tendency of many editors to accept liberal/progressive opinions, and descriptions of fact as the "norm" and thus to be far more hospitable to them than to conservative opinions and descriptions of fact. To be blunt, their tendency to push liberal/progressive sources and to suppress conservative/right-leaning sources. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as retaliatory. GregJackP Boomer! 19:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Arzel's central contribution to Wikipedia is to fight against the inclusion of any information he perceives as negative in articles about U.S. conservative individuals, (e.g., Glenn Beck, Ayn Rand, Mitt Romney, Pamela Geller, Mark Levin, Paul Ryan, George Zimmerman, the Koch family) and organizations (e.g., Tea Party Movement, Fox News Channel, the John Birch Society, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the Christian Right, the United States pro-life movement, the Family Research Council), while supporting the insertion of negative information about individuals (e.g., Paul Krugman) and groups (e.g., the Southern Poverty Law Center, Occupy Wall Street, the Democratic Party (United States)), he perceives to be liberal or left-wing.

His comments archived in the talk pages of the JBS illustrate his reasoning, "I removed the claim of Anti-Science.... If the JBS has as a founding member Fred Koch's then it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Chemical Engineering plays a huge role in the petroleum industry. Why in the world would a clearly scientific person like Koch be involved with an anti-science organization?" The JBS opposes climate science, evolution and fluoridation of water.[103]

This editor is unable or unwilling to accept the policies of neutrality and reliability. Accordingly his net contribution is negative and a waste of other editors' time spent in discussion threads.

TFD (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Arzel's JBS talk page edit was this:

“ I removed the claim of Anti-Science, which should really have an easily checkable source. Additionally, it fails the face validity check. If the JBS has as a founding member Fred Koch's then it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Chemical Engineering plays a huge role in the petroleum industry. Why in the world would a clearly scientific person like Koch be involved with an anti-science organization? Correction, I see Collect was addressing the same issue. Arzel (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC) ”

I admonish TFD for deliberately omitting the hoary nature of this evidence, and for carefully tailoring the quote of Arzel to omit this critical part that supports Arzel: "which should really have an easily checkable source", and also for omitting the last sentence indicating that Arzel was not alone. Next time, please try to be straightforward, and just lay out the pertinent facts, both pro and con.

Here is Arzel reverting the material in the article, with the following edit summary: "Undid revision 454921525 by Will Beback (talk)Claims like that need to be easily checked." Indeed, the footnote that Arzel deleted gave no page number and no link to the claim that the JBS was "anti-science".

It so happens that the cited source is now online here. The "anti-science" assertion was in reference to fluoridation, so Arzel's revert would have been 100% correct even if the footnote had provided a page number and link (which it did not). Whoever made the anti-science assertion with that footnoted source should not have tried to generalize beyond the context. Arzel was not alone in making that objection, as anyone can see from reading the Wikipedia histories.

Obviously, both Arzel's talk page comment as well as his article edit were supported by much more than his out- of-context remark that "Why in the world would a clearly scientific person like Koch be involved with an anti-science organization?"Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:59, 11 January 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.

Disruptive editing from University of Adelaide IPs

A few days ago, Gareth E Kegg reported longstanding disruptive editing from many IPs to Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, and as a result the article was protected. It has become clear that this is not the only article targeted by this vandal, who is using IPs in Australia, many of them on the servers of the University of Adelaide.

Articles affected include Women in the United Arab Emirates, Addams Family Reunion, Thing (The Addams Family), Indian, Diana, Princess of Wales, Mercedes-Benz W140 and several others, all of which have seen repeated identical disruptive edits from the same IPs. IPs making these edits have included 129.127.54.164 (talk · contribs), 2403:7900:ADE1:A1DE:250:56FF:FEA6:3B1F (talk · contribs), 2002:817F:36A3:0:0:0:817F:36A3 (talk · contribs), 2403:7900:ADE1:A1DE:250:56FF:FEA6:404 (talk · contribs) 129.127.54.163 (talk · contribs), 129.127.54.168 (talk · contribs) (all tracing back to the University of Adelaide), 203.26.123.208 (talk · contribs) (tracing back to the Office of the Chief Information Officer in Adelaide), 203.122.223.123 (talk · contribs), 203.39.81.8 (talk · contribs), 150.101.89.130 (talk · contribs) (other Australian IPs) and many more.

It is evident from the nature of these edits (which have been repeatedly reverted by numerous editors) and the location of these IPs that these are all the woerk of one obsessive vandal, probably working or studying at the University of Adelaide. Is there any action which can usefully be taken to stem this time-consuming disruption?

Yeah… either semi-protection if it's just these articles being vandalized, or blocking if it's just these IP users who are abusive. Or a combination of these, if it's a whole range of users vandalizing a lot of articles. Epicgenius (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

There are several more articles, and an apparently inexhaustible series of IPs. So semi-protection may be a better option. But I wonder, since so many of these are from the University of Adelaide and one is from the state government, whether these institutions can/should be contacted about misuse of their service? RolandR (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think that, from the list here, that some IP addresses can be at least rangeblocked (e.g. 129.127.54.161/29). Others would have to be plain old tag-and-bag blocks. Semi-protection may be appropriate to the articles most vandalized by these IP users. Epicgenius (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:Sobiepan

User:Sobiepan follows and removes my edits within seconds (e.g.[104], please take a look at his last 100 edits, most of them are removals of edits I made [105]). Gives no explanation for his behavior and removes all kind of warnings from his talkpage [106] [107]. HerkusMonte (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Please check the contribution of this user... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/HerkusMonte&offset=&limit=500&target=HerkusMonte That will explain my edits... ---Sobiepan (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HerkusMonte/Archive_1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HerkusMonte/Archive_2

...and his aggressive and offending behavior...--Sobiepan (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

A link to my archived talkpage - what is this supposed to say? Sobiepan started hounding me right after I sent him a "Gdansk vote notice" [108] about the practice of double/foreign names regarding towns in Poland. HerkusMonte (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Diffs? The archive shows us nothing, although a look at your contributions shows a blanket unexplained reversion of helpful contributions (like this, mostly removing the German language translations) while completely ignoring warnings. Admiral Caius (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits made by HerkusMonte are not helpful. Its your POV. BTW the Gdansk vote ends in no consensus.--Sobiepan (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

And it's just as unhelpful for you to be removing these additions all over the place without discussing your removals. For the lazy: Sobiepan wants to keep the German names for locations that are now within modern Poland out of the locations' articles. Much of HerkusMonte's work appears to be adding these names. I literally couldn't care less about German names for what are now Polish towns, but merely reverting the additions and not attempting to discuss this with the other editor is disruptive. 205.166.218.66 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but the questions is: why is he doing that? His edits are not in good faith. Please see his contribution and talk page.--Sobiepan (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)--

This is not the case of wikihounding. Wikihounding is personal retaliation by meritless contesting conrtibutions at random. In this case it is clearly localized content dispute similar to Gdanzig. While Sobiepan should have started discussion somewhere instead of reverting German name everywhere, this is not a civility/personal attack issue. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. this kind of communication by HercusMonte was hardly helpful for content dispute. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thats the reason why I removed his comments (warnings) left on my talk page.--Sobiepan (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Few examples of HerkusMonte problems with other users in the past:[109], [110], [111], [112], [113]

"while completely ignoring warnings. " - which is not prohibited, see [114] - Interesting that you are doing the same only 6 min after your comments here... see: [115] --Sobiepan (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverting every addition of the German name isn't constructive. The two of you need to actually discuss this. Discuss this on a talk page, go to WP:DRN, create an WP:RFC, whatever. Stop just blindly reverting these additions; at least provide some sort of rationale for why you're doing what you're doing. 205.166.218.66 (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The above does seem to echo a bitter taste of censoring for whatever the reason might be. What we feel individually as contributors or editors is not relevant in Wikipedia articles. The question is what the "reader" wants. A person, who perhaps has a German place name at hand, maybe found in personal historical records, will throw that place name in a search engine and see what it throws up. If Wikipedia can come up with the answer and/or additional information and say it is the former German place name for the now Polish village or town of... then that IS valuable to the reader. Nightsturm (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion HerkusMonte should be banned from editing on Poland related articles (which are 95% of his edits...). His mass edits seems to have nationalistic reasons... of what importance are the German names of small Polish villages (with few residents) which never played a role in the history? Of no importance for a reader--Sobiepan (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a well-established practice (compliant with WP:PLACE) to mention the German names of towns and villages in Poland which had been part of Germany until WWII. I don't do this for "nationalistic reasons" but I learned here at wikipedia that many Polish nationalists would prefer to suppress such facts. All my messages had been removed by Sobiepan from his talkpage, he never gave a rational for his edits and is obviously not interested in any kind of discussion. Instead he continued and reverted my edits.

How exactly am I supposed to react when a user refuses to discuss or explain his edits, follows me around and blindly reverts literally every single edit I make? I would call that WP:Vandalism but just learned that I'm wrong[116]. However, such kind of behavior shouldn't be tolerated. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile Sobiepan has reported me for "vandalism" because I sent him messages and used his talkpage without his permission [117]. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

towns and villages in Poland which had been part of Germany until WWII - Thats not correct. Before 1945 they had been part of several states including the Kingdom of Poland and Duchies which were ruled by the Polish Piast...--Sobiepan (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Example of HerkusMonte offensive behavior: He reverted my user talk page 2 times within 30 min without my permission and left aggressive comments, which should be considered as vandalism according to [118]. After I removed his comment on my talk page:[119], he 1. attacked me [120], 2. reverted my talk page [121] 3. reverted my talk page [122]--Sobiepan (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, this has become childish.

1. Regardless of the merits of the addition of German/Polish names, WP:BRD exists for a reason, so follow it;
2. If you accuse someone of vandalism when it's not, you're going to piss them off - so understand the definitions, please;
3. A good faith warning is NOT a personal attack;
4. When an editor removes a warning from their talkpage, that's explicit notice that it's been read - do not re-add it, and especially do not edit-war to re-add it

Neither of you have shone in this situation - in fact, you've both acted pretty dimly, and your sniping at each other on this very board is simply a continuation of the same. ES&L 11:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Just for your info, HerkusMonte accused me firstly of vandalism (including for reverts on my own talk page...)...[123]--Sobiepan (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, I know that. My statements above are not directed at either of you individually, but both of you collectively. Learn from them and move on. Recognize that now you're both being watched now, so act like adults, and go forth and edit ES&L 11:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Still wonder how one should react, when your edits are reverted within seconds without any explanation and all warnings ignored. Regarding Sobipan's talkpage - I wasn't aware of WP:BLANKING, sorry for that. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you it is childish. HerkusMonte continuing the revert war today... which shows his real intentions: [124]--Sobiepan (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes Sobie, you just proved that you're acting just as childishly. For frick sakes, would the both of you just STOP trying to get the last word in here, and go off and behave? This is NOT fricking rocket science. You've been told how to proceed - now proceed and shut up. ES&L 12:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

user:Arms Jones and abuse of non-free media

I have removed non-free files from Gallery of country coats of arms several times, and Arms has continued to re-insert them against our policy of non-free files in galleries, the user has show that they do not understand WP:NFCC the user neither needs blocked or given a clue. Werieth (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

These images are not non-free in the manner you mean. To use them in this form of gallery is fair use. Read the fair use information on the file page for each image. I do understand WP:NFCC; it seems you don't. If fair use is not deemed applicable for some of the images in this gallery, then the same goes for all of them and the gallery should be deleted totally. Arms Jones (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The files that I left are free, all non-free files where removed. Werieth (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The use of them in that gallery is fair use, even if the images would be non-free. Arms Jones (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on non-free media is far more strict than fair use law. According to our policies the files cannot be used. Werieth (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Please explain why you do that interpretation of the policies, since that is not what the policies say, at least not explicitly. Arms Jones (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Kick it to WP: NFCR (Non-administrator comment) Whether the image is valid or not is not appropriate for this noticeboard; take it to WP: NFCR to discuss that. Otherwise, I see nothing actionable here. Admiral Caius (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

What is actionable is Werieth violating 1RR on image reverts. He is not permitted to revert more than once on images because of prior edit warring but nevertheless he did so on Gallery of country coats of arms. freshacconci talk to me 21:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is a clear case violation. WP:NFCR is kinda pointless, its just one user refusing to follow policy. Werieth (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  This is in no way a "clear case" violation. Arms Jones (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Of course, this is an easy fix and doesn't require a ANI report, but someone likes drama. Any image on the coat of arms page that is not public domain can have a fair use rationale added. In the context of Gallery of country coats of arms, that is acceptable. The policy is not black and white as Werieth claims. There's always ways to work things out. Rather than deleting the images from the page, the rationale can be altered or added. The Canadian coat of arms file is a good example. It has a fair use rationale for one page. Simply copy that for Gallery of country coats of arms. WP:NFCC clearly says that is acceptable. Stating that using images in a gallery is limited does not make sense in this particular article, since it is a gallery, in and of itself. If Werieth doesn't like the article, he can take it to AFD. freshacconci talk to me 21:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Adding a template to a file page isnt some magic way of ignoring WP:NFCC. Usage of non-free media in galleries has nothing to do with rationales. Werieth (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." [Bold mine]. Have you ever actually read that link you plaster everywhere? freshacconci talk to me 21:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with rationales, That refers to WP:NFCC#10c, I am making reference to other WP:NFCC points (specifically 1,3,8). Yes if the only issue was 10c then you may have an argument, however in this case it has nothing to do with 10c and the other points. Werieth (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, reading comprehension. What I quoted is under "enforcement" and has to do with all the numbered points, not just 10c. Do you believe that because it falls right after the last numbered point? Seriously? freshacconci talk to me 22:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually because it has to do with rationales, which is what point 10 covers. Other points address different issues. Werieth (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup - Wikipedia:Non-free content is a guideline, not a policy. It states that "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered." I'd say that 'considering' it needs to be done at WP:NFCR before anything else is done - the onus is on Arms Jones to provide a valid justification for use though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I could have cited WP:NFCC#1,3,8 (policy) which is what WP:NFG tries to explain in those cases. Werieth (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you by multiple editors umpteen times, NFCC is not black and white. There is room for negotiation but for the mall cop who likes to prattle on about "policy" without actually understanding it and is only interested in deleting stuff, I guess pointing it out again is fruitless. freshacconci talk to me 22:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Some areas can easily be negotiated, this is not one of them, This is a purely decorative article in which non-free files will not meet WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

According to you and your interpretation. Your interpretation is not the final word (I can't believe I have to actually say that). #8 reads in full: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Arms Jones is arguing that its omission would be detrimental and I agree with her. Again, we are talking about our individual interpretations. None of us, including you have a single voice in this matter. Stop throwing guidelines and policy around as if you have the only correct point of view because you definitely do not and your interpretation leaves much to be desired. freshacconci talk to me 22:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

How is removal detrimental to understanding the article text when that text consists of 43 words and zero sources? Links to the primary articles on the coat of arms would serve the same educational purpose (failing WP:NFCC#1), usage on additional articles fails WP:NFCC#3. Just because you prefer non-free eye candy doesnt mean that it is acceptable under policy. Werieth (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like the article, take it to AFD. But I suspect it's the drama you really like. I've never worked on that article, so my likes or dislikes do not enter into it. You have violated 1RR, you had many, many other options to choose from when dealing with this, and the simplest and least argumentative choice would have been to add proper rationales. But again, the drama seems to lure you. Oh well. (And really, you do need to listen to pretty much everyone else that there are differences between policy, guidelines and in both cases, there's wiggle-room, (i.e. WP:IAR -- which is policy. D'oh!) freshacconci talk to me 23:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

To be fair to Werieth, based on past discussions on non-free galleries, he's probably right that this page fails policy and this would not be an exception case of allowing non-free galleries. But there is wiggle room and the point should have been discussed first before edit warring over it. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is a gallery of the coats of arms of the sovereign nations of the world. To show the coats of arms of all the sovereign nations of the world there is encyclopedic and fair use, just like the use of flag images is in the correspondent gallery of flags and the use of portraits is on lists of people. Werieth is not reading the policies thoroughly or seems at least not interested in explaining the interpretation made. Arms Jones (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Such visual galleries (free or not) are generally not appropriate on WP in the first place; it harms accessibility and if there's no content going along with it, it's just excessive (per WP:IG); a link to a Commons category for the free CoA would be appropriate. And of course, the NFC side, this is a pretty cut and dried invalid use of non-free in galleries when it's just a giant index/navigation page without any contextual information. That said, it is not a 3RR exception from editing, and the matter should have been brought to NFCR to review first. Assuming NFCR closed as for removal of non-free, and Arms continued to reinsert, then Werieth would have reason to break 3RR per the consensus. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thats why I brought it here, this is a clear case of multiple NFCC failures and a user who refuses to get the point. Instead of taking it further I brought it here. Werieth (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, as pointed out, fairly by others, NFG is not policy, so you shouldn't be edit warring, even if I'm 99% sure that at NFCR we would have agreed for removal. No NFCR has happened so this is technically edit warring without the appropriate NFC exception. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Werieth, this is not a "clear case" of NFCC failures, and if you could look at it objectively I think you could see why. We have different opinions about how to interprete the Wikipedia guiedlines in this case and you still haven't been able to explain your point. You are just stating it is without wanting to explain why. You are even interpreting a part of the guideline as strict when it literally isn't. Arms Jones (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

For those interested, here is what Werieth says he agreed to when a recent AN/I discussion about his NFCC behavior was closed:

I will only remove a file once if it is a case where the removal is questionable or subjective if it is re-added Ill file a NFCR (aka 1R). However in cases where the removal isnt subjective (WP:NFC#UUI#14, NFCC#10c,#9 and other similar cases) multiple removals are often needed before the user re-adding the file gets the point. I think this is a very reasonable middle ground where both sides can move forward from there. Werieth (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

He made that statement in response to a request for clarification from Slim Virgin. The AN/I thread is here. It was closed by Mark Arsten with the statement:

Werieth has agreed to limit himself to one revert and then take the issue to NFCR except in exceptional cases, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacommand has been opened. It does not look like any other admin attention is needed at this point, so I'm closing this. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Some rationale

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which may have articles about everything which has notability. Every independent country in the world is notable enough to write about. I think everyone would agree on that statement.

The most prominent symbol of an independent country is its coat of arms. It may not be the most well-known symbol (that is normally the flag), but it is arguably the most prominent, as it stands for the government and its power, is displayed at central government buildings, at embassies, at border crossings, on official stamps and on the cover of passports etc. So I think the coat of arms of an independent country is notable enough to be displayed on Wikipedia. To display these coats of arms together and with links to the articles about each one of them is what an encyclopedia should be about, in my opinion.

Then of course, we have the matter of images and image copyright, which, according to some, should prevent us from showing some (but not all) of the coats of arms together with the others. So, in that case, should we display the coats of arms in other ways than in images? We could, since in heraldry all arms are described in a blazon. We could rewrite the gallery to be a collection of written blazons instead. That would be equally fine for me, who is quite used to read and understand blazons, but would it be fine for the average reader? I think not. So there is a reasonable and fair reason for this gallery and for it to display all the national coats of arms of the world. Arms Jones (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

"The most prominent symbol of an independent country is its coat of arms" Very few people care about a country's coat of arms - in fact, only people interested in coats of arms in general do. In actuality, the most prominent symbol of an independent country is its flag, and the majority of the people in the world who have ever considered the question would, I think, agree with that. (Not that the majority of people in the world would recognize the flag of any particular country, except for a few very prominent ones.) In any event, you're operating from an extremely skewed POV regarding coats of arms - in reality, no one (statistically speaking) cares about them. (Which is perhaps why, like academic disputes, people can get so riled up about them). BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no point in posting your rationale here, admins don't make decisions over such issues - take it to Wikipedia:Non-free content review. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I was expecting Werieth to take it there, if someone would. Arms Jones (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that in general, with the "few exceptions" sort of writing in the policy, we as neutral admins need to assume the answer is "no" until your case is proved on the appropriate specialized discussion or noticeboard. As Andy writes, this is the wrong venue for that discussion. (edit) And, the burden of proof would be on you under the circumstances to show that the proper discussion board consensus was with you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone know what's happening here: 1990 FIFA World Cup

1990 FIFA World Cup There's a copy of File:Vandalism San Francisco.jpg there that blocks the lede and much of the top. I can't see how it got there or even why it's there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be coming from the vcalendar class. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The file page states that more than 100 pages now have this image. -_- MercenaryHoplite (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed two parameters from the infobox and it was gone. I then restored the parameters and it was still gone. Why did it show up? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

See this edit by User:DoomedToVanish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).--Auric talk 16:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this edit was the one that caused the problem in this case. Graham87 08:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

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.

---

In this edit, Lawann is posting huge walls of uncited, biased text in the Violence against Indians in Australia controversy. The user is also threatening to report this to the media and to "shut down my account". I don't know if any admin intervention is needed at this point, but it sounds like a credible threat to me. Epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked per NOTHERE. GiantSnowman 16:52, 11 January 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.

Protection and suppression needed at Elizabeth Katz

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

---

A string of IPs (likely a single editor) have converted this article about a Mexican TV actress into an attack page targeting a minor and nonnotable "internet celebrity" with a somewhat different name. Could someone please semi-protect the article at the point of my last edit and RevDel all (other) edits since August 13 2013, including one recent edit summary in particular. Thanks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Listed at WP:RPP. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:09, 12 January 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.

Talk:2014 Formula One season

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

---

Can I request an intervention in the discussion regarding the subject Explanation of the system being used - Subsection Time to decide. Discussions including a handful of editors including myself have been taking place regarding said matter. A rough description of what has been discussed is in regards to an outdated system in place that lists the current Formula 1 drivers by their given car numbers allocated to them by their 'then' current teams retrospective finishing position in the previous years WCC (World Constructors Championship). Recent changes by the governing FIA however have resulted in the old system being scrapped whilst giving place to a new system which gives drivers their own specific permanent career car number of their choice. Seeing as how in previous (But not all) years the system being used also subsequently listed the participating teams in their previous WCC order (Excluding certain cases such as 2009), This new system now effects that original in a manner of inconsistency between the understanding of placement and the purpose of car numbers within F1. Talk involving many of us have come to two opinions on which way forward would be officially correct in it's purpose. One being the continuing use of listing by car numbers whilst the other continuing use of the current WCC rankings. I/we feel due to the nature of the sport itself, sport ranking in general and the changes issued by the FIA playing major parts in such a system suggests the use of the latter listings as the way forward whilst others feel there is no need to change such system do to an outdated consensus and using old pages as justification. Agreement still has not yet been reached and has resulted not only in heated argument within the discussion page but an edit war between myself and another editor, Specifically user Prisonermonkeys, whom seems to fuel his own consensus from personal opinion; that which has since changed 3 times since the beginning (WCC > Alphabetical > Numeral). Similar edits he has forced into place have since been changed due to much needed proof over otherwise outdated and poorly misunderstood claims/sources whilst ignoring the opinion and factual evidence from others ( "(Name) Grand Prix" vs. "Grand Prix of (Name)" & a now removed discussion over Sergiy Sirotkin), even so including official listing of teams by the FIA and the Official Formula 1 Website supporting current discussion. I request someone to please use logical sense and understanding in this matter to resolve it. Yes I am mainly trying to focus my own opinion to be the correct one but only for the good of the page, the sport and the readers as WCC listings give more information and sense to the reader as apposed to a simplistic and otherwise unneeded numerical system which would also confuse the entire issue more so in regards to most recent years. Joetri10 (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that a prelinary consensus has been formed in favour of the numerical system. Joetri10 and another editor, Eightball, have refused to observe this consensus, and have resorted to increasingly aggressive an unacceptable tactics to force through their preferred version of the page. Together, they have edit-warred, attempted to characterise edits they disagree with as vandalism, repeatedly removed 8,000KB of undisputed content from the page, threatened admin intervention on numerous occasions, and have generally held the page hostage until their demands have been met. Their edits have been nothing short of disruptive. Whether an editor changes their opinion on the subject, how often they change their opinions, or what their opinions were in other, unrelated discussions were is of absolutely no bearing to this issue. Joetri claims that his own opinion is in the best interests of the page, and has incorrectly assumed that this gives him the right to ignore and override a consensus.

In simple terms, the Formula 1 WikiProject has always edited season articles like this one to contain details that are only pertinent to that season. Prior to 2014, car numbers were assigned based on championship positions from the previous year. As a result of this, when the team and driver tables were created for those season articles, and they were organised in numerical order, they naturally reflected the championship standings from the previous season. However, from 2014, the numbers are assigned based on driver preferences, and when the table is organised in numerical order, it no longer reflects the championship standings from the previous season. As it no longer reflects the standings, the 2013 standings have absolutely no bearing on the 2014 season article. Despite this, Joetri10 and Eightball insist that the table must be arranged according to those standings, and are refusing to consider any alternative, hence the aggressive tactics.

It is also worth noting that arranging team and driver tables in numerical order is not only standard practice on Formula 1 season articles, but in the majority of motorsport season articles as a whole (though some do have their own idiosyncracies that have been adopted by their respective WikiProjects). 2013 International V8 Supercars Championship does it. 2013 World Touring Car Championship season does it. 2013 FIA European Formula 3 season does it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus but the one you made up yesterday when everyone else was gone. The old consensus of listing by Car Numbers refers to a system that has otherwise been completely changed. The numbers now hold a entirely different value. It now makes no sense to anybody. An example is if Footballers were given the chance to choose their own jersey numbers. They have these numbers to allocate their position, though more-so within the entire team itself, it still serves that purpose of belonging. Would you suggest continue use of listing by numbers then? even though the official order would be off.

It has not just been me or Eightball but others that have disrupted your claim of agreement towards the numerical system nor have you suggested any reason for your consensus other than "Because we have done it before". TvX1 also was in favor and you dismissed his opinion also (On several occasions) There's 3 of us and 3 of you who have continually debated with this.

I have threatened admin involvement once and look, here we are. As for deleting information on there, that is a misconception due the bulk of what is trying to be changed. It appears that with every bulk change to one section, small edits are made to another, coincidently creating a problem when reverting back. If someone then only targets a specific area to be reverted back, someone changes it back with more small edits. It's a poor trick of justification to use against someone.

"Joetri claims that his own opinion is in the best interests of the page, and has incorrectly assumed that this gives him the right to ignore and override a consensus." I say the exact same thing to you. We have discussed this before and the only thing that resulted in a change was new proof. Otherwise no matter what, your opinion stayed on the page. My opinion does not change but yours certainly does, it's clear as day at the start of the topic. The only reason you are even in favor of a numerical value is because we now have these numbers. Before it was to organize them alphabetically. Before that you had no problem of the WCC. You can be quoted saying that.

As for taking the page hostage and multiple edit wars, that is not me. I have reverted edits only today which for that sake resulted in this, otherwise I do not make the edits.

What other pages do are irrelevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetri10 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• The discussions on that talk page are often an embarrassment to the website; I hold my hands up and say that I didn't help matters earlier on. With regards to this ANI thread, this is a content dispute that should be at WP:DRN, not here. Prisonermonkeys, Joetri10 and User:Eightball have all smashed 3RR to pieces; I count 5 conventional reverts from Joetri in 3-and-a-half hours, 6 from Prisonermonkeys today, plus 3 yesterday, and 4 reverts have come from Eightball (the first deletion of nearly 8K of content counts as a revert, particularly as it was a continuation of one of the previous reverts. User:Tvx1 only reverted once yesterday, and User:Deaþe gecweald only once today. The best analysis of this situation came from User:Bretonbanquet here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

If I was edit-warring - and I do not deny it - it was because a consensus had been established. I was simply restoring the article to the state supported by the consensus in the face of an onslaught of edits from people who seemed to think that they could ignore whatever edits they disagreed with because they disagreed with them, and then turned around and got upset when they felt someone had done what they had just done. Even now, they will happily drag up other, unrelated discussions to make their case, and then insist that the format used by other related articles is irrelevant. All I am trying to do is keep the article in a state supported by a consensus, but instead two editors seem to think that if their preferred edits are in the article, then their case is stronger for it. This is the kind of behaviour I expected from User:DeFacto, and I am seriously considering going to SPI because both Eightball and Joetri10 are displaying some of his most disruptive behaviours. A fixation with minor details, trying to force his preferred edits through by edit-warring and attempting to discredit other edits by accusing them of vandalism is precisely what he did at Red Bull RB10 under one of his many, many sock accounts. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a sock puppet, get over yourself. Eightball (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As someone who has been involved in the discussion but not the editting on the article (since Jan 5 since then there has been two pages of edit history worth of edit war), I do not see a consensus forming but rather two opposed blocks of opinion. Now we have multiple edittors violating 3R because they believe they are right to do so, completely ignoring that you are not supposed to edit war in return for any reason and giving no respect to each other. And now we have the implied accusation of sock-puppeting. I'm ashamed to be involved.

You stop the editting and thrash it out on the talk page. You DO NOT fight it out in the article. --Falcadore (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus as of yet and I am tired of hearing that there is one

Yes, I did do an edit war in the hope that I wouldn't have to do so. As it carried on, I came here. Joetri10 (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You are required to live by the OLD consensus (as you call it) until consensus for change has been reached - even if it doesn't fully apply anymore. So yes, there is consensus - the default consensus is status quo ES&L 13:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case then there is only "consensus" for sorting the table alphabetically, as it long was before the official numbers were released. THAT is the status quo. There is absolutely no consensus supporting the numerical order of the table. None whatsoever. In addition, I FIRMLY believe it is the worst, least useful way to sort the table, and I will NOT sit here and watch you people intentionally make an article worst. This problem will not be resolved unless a solution other than numerical sorting is reached, end of story. I'm not going to edit the article for now but it all but pointless to try to actually reach consensus. We ALMOST reached consensus on alphabetical order, then we ALMOST reached consensus on WCC order, and both times Prisonermonkeys kept pushing the issue until he got his way. It is absolutely infuriating that I am being scapegoated here when all I am trying to do is enforce the agreement that was reached before one selfish editor inexplicably decided we needed to stop editing the page the way it's always been edited. This is ridiculous. Eightball (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, the official FIA entry list is sorted in WCC order. How are we continuing to ignore this? It is by far the most important source we have and you're completely throwing it by the wayside. Eightball (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

How about this Prisonermonkeys? These are the reasons why I want to sort the table in WCC: It's the way all the recent articles have been sorted (ain't broke, don't fix it). It puts the most successful and most notable teams near the top (inverted pyramid). It's the way the FIA sorts their own entry list. Reasons you want to sort the table numerically: It's the way other, non-F1 articles do it. Do you realize now why I am as angry as I am? Can you at least attempt to give me one objective reason why sorting the table numerically would make this page better? Ignore the fact that we're on Wikipedia. Ignore all Wikipedia policies. If you were creating this table to pin on your wall for your own reference, how would you sort this and why? This discussion shouldn't be about consensus, or edit warring, or false accusations of sock puppetry. It should be about how we can make our articles best. Eightball (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've locked the article for a week. It was either that or a handful of blocks. BTW, content disputes should not be worked out on ANI, so this should be taken back to the talk page and dispute resolution if it can't be resolved there.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 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.

Sockpuppet investigation of kentatm

Can you any one please check this account for WP:SPI ? Thanks Nechlison (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you suspect sockpuppetry? Kentatm has only edited 1987 Texas A&M Aggies football team, and no other person has edited that (apart from you speedying it), so what other accounts are involved here? bobrayner (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Silicon Valley is not connected with the Porn industry, nor is there any confusion about it

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

---

This is my first use of this process, so please bear with me...
Over the last several years or so a hatnote (or similar link) has been added and repeated removed from the Silicon Valley article that draws a comparison between it and a very similar nickname "SiliconE Valley" (my emphasis added). Initially the latter term was used to describe San Fernando Valley and the copious amount of adult related and pornographic videos that are produced there. The hatnote was deleted and reverted several times until finally a discussion ensued (several times) here and here.

Later, the case has been stated and made that there is likely confusion of the terms "Silicon" (the element, Si) and the substance "silicone" (that is used in a great many products). The result of that discussion was to redirect Silicone Valley to Silicon Valley primarily because of the confusion of the terms as substances, but not in regard to any slang or nickname usage.

That said, over the last several week User:Thryduulf persists (to the point of violating 3RR), in adding a hatnote to the Silicon Valley article claiming that there is "confusion" regarding the use of the terms and the locations. I do not dispute that there is evidence that the term "SiliconE Valley" is one of many nicknames for the San Fernando Valley, but no source, evidence, or support have ever been offered that anyone confuses "Silicon Valley" (one of the primary -if not the- technology centers of the planet) with the area where porn is produced.

I am calling for a ban of this hatnote from the Silicon Valley article and a ban of User:Thryduulf from editing the same article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:39, 12 January 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.

Requesting removal of a stigmatizing ARBCOM case log entry

Yesterday, Roccodrift (talk · contribs) placed a discretionary sanction notification on my user talk page after I made this edit restoring content supported by an RfC consensus and at least a majority of involved editors. Roccodrift then added my name to the Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions under the subheading notifications at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. I objected, asked for an explanation and then removed my name from the ARBCOM log. Roccodrift failed to explain why he had singled me out for this warning, or what I allegedly did to run afoul of the discretionary sanctions. I also asked on Roccodrift's talk page. I can only conclude that the intent was to shame me by associating me with the ARBCOM case.

According to WP:AC/DS: "Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;" It further states, under logging, that "All sanctions imposed under the provisions of a particular arbitration case are to be logged in the appropriate section of the case page." There is no provision for logging warnings or notifications, and certainly not spurious notifications from a user that has supposedly only edited on Wikipedia for 72 days.

This morning, admin Thryduulf (talk · contribs) restored the notification log entry listing. When I asked why I was singled out and what misconduct I had committed his response was that he didn't know why I was notified, but now that I had been, "It is correct that this awareness is formally recorded in the appropriate place". Neither policy nor WP:AC/DS documents any such requirement. In fact, the case page states: "Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but the other content of this page should not be edited."

I have a clean block log and, as far as I know, I have never even been the subject of a noticeboard discussion, and certainly never an ARBCOM case. Out of almost 38,000 edits I have been warned for edit warring twice, and one of those warnings came from indef blocked user Belchfire. I think my editing at Political activities of the Koch brothers has been constructive, and I think my talk page participation have been mostly collegial and consistent with WP:TPG.

This ARBCOM sanction notification, and especially the conspicuous logging of it, besmirches my reputation. I respectfully request that it be removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement.- MrX 15:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

MrX, being notified is not a big deal and does nothing to besmirch a reputation. All a notification says is that you've been made aware that an article you've been editing is subject to special sanctions as a result of a particular ArbCom case. It does not indicate that you've done anything wrong at all. This is pretty normal, see for example the notification list for ARBPIA here: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Log_of_notifications. The only consequence of a logged notification is that if you behave badly in editing in the area you've been notified about, you can't claim you didn't know about the sanctions. This is truly "no biggie". Zad68 15:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective, but I believe that the notification was fallacious and that it does indeed imply that I have misbehaved.- MrX 15:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

MrX I'm sorry you feel that way about the notification. Actually you're not the first editor I've seen feel the notification implies more than it does, but all it means is that you've edited an article subject to special sanctions. It's just an informational notification. I thought the message you received about it had the right tone, "be advised that discretionary sanctions have been placed" in effect at the article you edited. OK, you're notified. Feel free to remove the section from your User Talk and go about editing. Zad68 15:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Several things you have stated above about the arbitration process are either incorrect or misconceptions. For example, there clearly is a provision for logging notifications, or there wouldn't be a "Notifications" section on the case page for people to log them. Furthermore, you say that notifications shouldn't be edited because only the "Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions" section is to be changed; the latter part of that is correct, and since you'll notice that the Notifications subsection is actually in that section, the editing of it is explicitly allowed. Anyway, to address your actual request, the warning does not besmirch your reputation at all. If you're certain you've done nothing wrong, then you're honestly better off just ignoring the situation and carrying on. Nobody else will care about the warning. For example, there is a user on Meta-Wiki that follows me around making all sorts of grandiose claims about abuse from the checkuser team, and in particular myself. He recently even tried to derail a discussion I was having by saying that checkusers like to out people to shame them. However, since I know I did my due diligence and that I did nothing wrong, I just ignore it. It's not worth the effort. I suggest you try to do the same. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I fail to understand how the existence of a section heading supersedes documented guidelines and processes. More importantly, this has a chilling effect on my ability to participate in editing controversial articles, and for no good reason. I see no legitimate reason why this notification logging should stand.- MrX 15:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

My point was that the rules you're saying that explicitly disallow it actually explicitly allow it, and that you've misread the rules; as a subsection of the Log section, the Notifications subsection is explicitly covered in the wording that says it's allowed to edit it. Anyway, it seems that you wish to pursue this more despite my insistence that it's futile since nobody will really care about it, so I have nothing further to say here, except to wish you luck. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I concede that that section can be modified, but there is nothing requiring that notifications be logged.- MrX 16:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I can do little more than repeat what I said on my talk page, "If you have not and do not engage in any improper conduct in the topic area then the fact that you have been warned is completely irrelevant." It even has zero relevance if you act improperly in other topic areas. You might be interested in the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review (which is still open for comment on the talk page), which will make this explicit, "Any editor may alert any other editor that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for the area of conflict. These alerts are advisory in nature and cannot be revoked or appealed. The alert links to the Committee's authorisation and is issued by placing the standard template message – currently {{ArbCom-Alert}} – on the talk page of the editor being notified. Alerts must be logged." Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the notification by Roccodrift appears to be a quasi-retaliatory thing and I believe it needs to be removed from the logs. However, MrX did question why Roccodrift who is not an admin was warning (reminding) him, but the same could be said of MrX who has issued spurious warnings himself to others and I would remind him not to do that again himself.--MONGO 15:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I erred in believing that only an admin could issue DS notifications. If there is some spurious warning that I have issued inappropriately, then I'm happy to discuss that elsewhere, and if necessary, retract any such warning.- MrX 16:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Your argument is based on a proposed draft? As I said on your talk page, this 'is relevant to me, so I would appreciate it if you would not dismiss it and perhaps actually address the substance of my complaint. I believe the notification was retaliatory and meant to have a chilling effect on my editing. I'm also still waiting for someone to comply with "Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;"- MrX 16:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I just removed the log entry "as a malformed log item of a malformed notification". For what it's worth, I'll be recommending to ArbCom that the requirement for logging goes completely in the next version of the DS procedures. If, in the meantime, that triggers a de facto relaxation of logged notifications, then so be it.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Roger Davies I'll defer to your experience in this area, but so that I don't make the mistake again in the future: What is the actual rule here? Who can notify, and when, and how? Thanks... Zad68 16:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Anybody can notify (or "alert" as it's likely to be called) anyone under the new arrangement and it explicitly carries no association of stigma. Completing the DS review ran into the lame duck period of the 2013 committee but is high on the agenda for the 2014 ArbCom. It'll take a while for the new arbitrators to settle in to the mountain of stuff and get round to reviewing the DS procedures but it should be completed with a month or so.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Meh....anybody to me sounds like an invitation for trolls...who came up with this idea anyway?--MONGO 16:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's simply a vanilla notification that DS applies to a topic, who cares if trolls want to waste their time?  Roger Davies ^talk 17:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Golly gee...I dunno...maybe editors that don't want to be trolled...as may have happened in the case right here. Not everybody has your patience or should be expected to have it, especially when dealing with jackasses. Lets not make it easier for jackasses to abuse process.--MONGO 17:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

DS arbitrary break

There appears to be widespread misunderstanding on this matter. I asked AGK specifically about this: "Is the discretionary sanctions warning for misconduct, as it says?" AGK: "Yes". I also asked if the 2013 draft is applicable now, and the answer was no. Currently there are no such things as mere informational notifications. All DS warnings are warnings for misconduct. AGK says that you may appeal the warning once the new draft is in effect. vzaak 17:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec):This is not *just* a notification. It is the *last* notification before a block or ban. If you have one of those, anyone can complain about you to Arbitration Enforcement and they can block or ban you in a heartbeat, for a year, with no talk page discussion, and with no warning. I'm relatively new too, and I got one of these in February. Nobody can tell me anything that I did wrong, and nobody can tell me how to get it removed. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a notification. It's a notification that any of that can happen. It tells you the environment you are engaging in. It's like, if you go to beach with jellyfish, there will be a sign that says "WARNING: THERE ARE JELLYFISH HERE" and you know to watch out for the jellyfish. That's all it is. If you get stung, you had fair warning that there were jellyfish in the water.--v/r - TP 21:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

In the future, yes, but according to AGK the 2013 draft isn't in effect yet. See my comment directly above Neotarf's. vzaak 23:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It has always been that way. Consensus and common procedure determines policy, not the other way around. We take good practices and we codify them. This is one of those cases.--v/r - TP 23:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If the notification is as perfunctory as you imply, why not task a bot to alert every new editor that has made a first edit in such an area? Is not the jellyfish sign meant for all beach-goers in that area? The alert MrX speaks of is for not simply editing within an area, but having done so in a manner requiring modification, hence the requirement to "identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways". It is disingenuous to suggest this element does not exist, and disquieting that so many, of esteem, would imply otherwise.—John Cline (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No, if the right template was used ({{Uw-probation}}), the template itself says something to the effect of "you did nothing wrong". It's a notification so a user who is otherwise a good editor who gets caught up in an edit war can't say "Well, I didn't know there were general sanctions in this topic area." It's a heads-up and I think it's actually a courtesy to give someone a heads up. This is all just a bit of bad faith preplanned wikilawyering so when the user gets slammed later they can say they didn't get a notification first. Notifications are not warnings, never have been, never will be, are not treated like warnings, arn't given out like warnings, arn't a punishment, arn't negative, and arn't any sort of black mark. When I patrol topic areas with discretionary sanctions, I notify everyone who has more than a few minor edits of the sanctions.--v/r - TP 00:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

TP, article probation isn't the same thing as discretionary sanctions. In the current system, there is no such notification-only mechanism for discretionary sanctions, there is only a warning for misconduct. That is what the DS page says, that is what AGK has confirmed, and that is how the warning is used in practice by e.g. Sandstein and EdJohnston. Take a look at the pseudoscience log, which had only 3 to 15 per warnings issued per year until 2012. Obviously more users than that had edited pseudoscience articles during that time. It is only a recent phenomenon that admins have begun to use the DS warning template as a non-warning notification, something which has caused tremendous confusion. I notice Neotarf announced retirement after receiving the warning. My reaction was nearly the same -- seeing my name listed alongside the various pseudoscience pushers was revolting, and I was ready to retire right then. vzaak 08:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, TParis, there certainly are jellyfish in the water, but where? Discretionary sanctions can be used anywhere--talk pages, RFA's--and not just in some topic area. And on the flimsiest excuse. If someone has a content dispute with you, as appears to be the case above, all they have to do is log one of these against you, then make a complaint in a venue that has a reputation for not checking diffs, and poof! their opponent is blocked. With no talk page discussion, no warnings. And it goes without saying that DS will never be applied to admins. A number of long-time valued contributors have left over this. —Neotarf (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No, discretionary sanctions can't be used anywhere. They require community consensus or Arbcom to determine that a topic area is incapable of being productive without a stricter enforcement of policy. So if a user is used to editing in Power Puff Girls and they happily get their 3 reverts and then suddenly they revert twice to Paul Ryan and get blocked, they arn't taken off guard.--v/r - TP 01:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has been used at RFA, against an editor who has been given one of these notices, since saying anything negative about a candidate can be construed as "casting aspersions". It has been used to block someone who posted on a user talk page. It has been used to ban someone for filing at AE. It is a speed-banning notice, and replaces the policy that requires warnings. I received one of these notices without anyone ever bothering to find out if I had even edited the page in question. —Neotarf (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: "This is all just a bit of bad faith preplanned wikilawyering so when the user gets slammed later they can say they didn't get a notification first." - I'm not sure if that's directed at me or not. Would you care to elaborate?- MrX 01:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not, this didn't start with you.--v/r - TP 01:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf is correct. TParis is correct, John Cline is correct, and so on. Wikipedia is not black and white but shades of gray. Arbcom is not a single collective, but an evolving, shifting collection of editors -- editors join and leave arbcom, and their perspective can't help but change over time. Discretionary warnings were, at first, primarily that -- warnings to be placed in reaction to perceived misdeeds. In time it became apparent that this caused problems: the concern that some warnings were not appropriate and the illogical of "unnotifying" an editor. This is being addressed -- AC 2013 made large strides in improving the process and I'm hopeful AC 2014 will bring it to closure. Remember, all that really matters is mainspace -- the Wikipedia:: space is definitely not just. Maybe Neotarf got a raw deal, maybe they didn't. I honestly don't care about them because I don't care terribly much about any single editor; the 122,038 {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} is what's important. In general Wikipedia:: has the attention span of a gnat and is long on forgiveness; any editor can choose to put the stick down, figure out the rules and edit as long as they like. NE Ent 02:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but why is ANYONE concerned that they were basically shown a sign that says "by the way, you've stumbled into a minefield" and then added the name to a list of people who have been notified? It's a GOOD thing to be warned, and by adding you to the list we can say "hey, don't say we didn't tell you about the minefield". Someone is very poorly looking at this from the exact wrong angle. Nothing to get knickers in a knot - you should actually be saying "thanks for the heads up". What a load of heat > light ES&L 12:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A nicely worded notification at the top of the talk page and at the top of the edit window would take care of that. There's no need to whack people with the "stay away from jellyfish sign" unless they're playing with jellyfish. There's no justification for publishing a random beachgoer's picture in the paper next to mug shots from the county jail.- MrX 12:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Every single fricking article would need one then, for all intents and purposes. Think how that would look to the average reader of Wikipedia. You're really looking at this as punitive, when it clearly is not ... so much for WP:AGF it seems ES&L 12:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem is people don't AGF and whack people with bans who have "been warned" despite the prior warning was for absolutely fine behavior. Let the user know there are sanctions. Warn (and log) when they are on or over the line. 129.9.75.252 (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent. You are close, but missed a step. DS warning started as simple notifications without implication of wrongdoing. At some point early on, someone altered the standard template to include the words "if you continue to misconduct yourself". It was at that point the notification added an implication of wrongdoing. Since nobody noticed for some time, this was believed to be the way it always was. The perception of the DS warning being for misbehavior stems from that action and was a good faith mistake. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If giving and logging of the DS warning is as perfunctory as has been suggested, why not task a bot to alert every new editor that has made a first edit in such an area? Conversely, if we are opposed to bot-notificating/logging, does this not refute the notion that the warning/logging is purely perfunctory? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@User 204: Just the opposite. The template has long been used for official accusations of misconduct, and carried a notice that it was meant to be a hostile template: "The template is intentionally worded to apply only after an editor begins to misbehave; preemptive warnings are considered hostile." It was only recently changed [125]. This is what it looked like a year ago. It is a last-notice-before-sanctions speed-banning notice. The only reason anybody would have for using this template is because they want someone blocked. —Neotarf (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well its not like I don't already know what my foot tastes like. Can't argue with diffs, I suppose. I do remember lurking back when DS were just a gleam in arbcoms eye and know the warnings were intended as a fair way to inform people of the rules before sanction. I also remember the temple not really jiving to that intent... But I thought for a brief shining moment it did. Probably better to crawl back in my hole now. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, no, IP 204, don't crawl away. The only reason I had those diffs at my fingertips was that I spent quite a few hours pouring over the changes for that particular template, in preparation for a special arbitration report on the topic, that for a variety of reasons got deep sixed. And I only went back 2 years. There are two different things in play here, the ideal of how people think the arbitration enforcement works, and the actual way it works with real users. Not surprising, really; this is how organizations work. What happened to make it change, I think was the elections, and the need to be able to deal rapidly with politician's articles that were being rapidly cycled. Admins could not take the time to issue warnings required by the policy, so this was a stop-gap measure. So now there are 27 topic areas under discretionary sanctions and 713 pages under article probation. And nobody can even explain why, or whether they are working. Such is Mission Creep. <sigh> —Neotarf (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Um...where is this going? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

A good question: it's going nowhere, and I fear my wikifriend Neotarf is spinning around in circles. Neotarf, you appear to see ill in every nook and cranny, probably because you got emotionally burned from the system yourself. I'm sorry about that, but now is the time to see the proposed new system for what it is, without the conspiracy theory overlaid. Tony (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Leaving aside for the moment the ad hominem personal attack and the reference to me, without overt irony, as his "wikifriend", Tony should actually read the proposal, and inform himself about how the current system is actually used, before making blanket assertions and wild accusations. —Neotarf (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Lg16spears and disruptive edits

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:Lg16spears has been warned multiple times for his disruptive editing by adding poorly formatted website references which are frequently accompanied by poor grammar. This has been a months long problem that I recently reapplied myself to trying to fix and there has been no change in his behavior. I think the only way to get him to change his behavior is to use temporary blocks. Hopefully one block will be enough to get him to correct his behavior Spidey104 00:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that this user presents some problems. I have no solution right now other than the old "block for refusing to talk", and I'm not feeling that at present. I hope someone else has better suggestions or more will power. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is the only time I can find where he has actually responded on his talk page. All of his other edits to his talk page are removing warnings, and despite all of his removals he still has an extensive list of warnings on his talk page. With all of those warnings with no response and no change in behavior I think it is actually long past due to start the "block for refusing to talk" and "block for refusing to change disruptive behavior". I am open to other suggestions, but I am here because I have run out of solutions that I can try on my own. Spidey104 01:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• This one kind of sealed the deal for me. Temporarily blocked: if this behavior returns, we can block for longer. I hope they start talking. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 13 January 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.

Paid editing again

• InternetUser25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Whisper (app) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user looks very much like a throw away sock puppet of the type that have been used by paid editing agencies. The article it created looks like a PR piece, written in glowing terms, totally free of anything negative or critical. Newbies typically don't understand wiki syntax so well to be able to create a polished article like this in just a handful of edits. The article was promoted at T:DYK, generating millions of pageviews views of the blurb, a very substantial value of advertising. I have tagged the article with {{COI}}, and removed it from DYK, until concerns about neutrality are addressed.

I request a checkuser look at the account to see if it is related to any others, and if those others might also be engaged in forbidden types of paid editing (COI, non-neutral, advertorial writing). Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

"Millions" of pageviews? You mean hundreds? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

With a throwaway account like that, simply looking at diffs can't tell us which other accounts are associated with this one, but checkuser is more likely to work. bobrayner (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Demiurge1000: Jehochman definitely got his figures wrong, but typical figures are a few thousand. Matty.007 17:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The home page gets millions of page views per day, in fact, about 12 million.[126] Each time the home page is loaded, the Whisper (app) is appeared in the DYK list. Whether the user clicks through is another matter. In any event, an appearance on the home page of Wikipedia is worth thousands of dollars.Jehochman ^Talk 17:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Given there is no policy against paid editing this should not be at ANI, and the original poster should both know and, being an admin, properly model correct suspected sock reporting (i.e. WP:SPI). NE Ent 17:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I would point out that the account has broken policy - the obvious one being NPOV, and WP:SOCK seems likely too. We're not a bureaucracy; socks are often dealt with in other venues, including WP:ANI, rather than solely SPI - the latter is structured around cases where the sockmaster is already known. bobrayner (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The user disclaims any paid editing or socking.[127] Unless a checkuser comes along and says otherwise, I have to accept the user's explanation. The errors in maintaining NPOV could just be a newbie mistake. That can be fixed with editing. Jehochman ^Talk 18:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• comment: Mabye just extend the article if you think there is content missing? Prokaryotes (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please send this to SPI. --Rschen7754 19:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

SPI is useless unless there is an account to file it under. A clear reading of this thread will indicate why that is not possible. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The question asked by InternetUser25 at [128] about creating multiple related redirects to the article in question indicates Search engine optimization for additional hits. How did this obvious puff piece make it to DYK, anyway? I put an "Advertising" tag on the article, took out some of the peacocking language per WP:PEACOCK, pointed out that Whisper, the messaging program, and Whisper Systems, the company, are unrelated, and added a "Criticism" section. But it still reads like an ad. John Nagle (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

After some cleanup, the hype level has been reduced from 11 to about 5 or 6. Both favorable and unfavorable comments from the press are now present. The article is more encyclopedic, and it's clearer what the thing actually does. Please check my work. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Msoamu just doesn't learn

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:Msoamu is no stranger to this noticeboard. Or some other noticeboards, for that matter. To keep it short:

• Msoamu's block log
• ANI discussion which lead to his topic ban
• The topic ban notice

The problem now is stipulations three and four. Point three states:

3.If Msoamu edits appropriately for the next six months, but continues the same disruptive behavior after the expiration of the topic ban, any admin may reinstate a new topic ban to be of at least one year.

Msoamu did not edit properly for those six months; he didn't edit at all. That's fine, that's his choice, though it would have been better for him to adhere to point four:

4.Msoamu is strongly encouraged to obtain a mentor, ideally while the ban is still in place, so that Msoamu may be guided to editing that conforms with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Now, Msoamu has committed an infraction of Wikipedia:Canvassing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Students Organization of India MSO. It's an article which was once deleted under another name (AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Students' Organization of India). The organization, known by its acronym MSO, is supposedly at Aligarh Muslim University, also known as AMU. Not making this up.
Anyway, after commenting at 07:16, 9 January 2014, he then canvassed three other users at 07:25, 9 January 2014, 07:29, 9 January 2014 and 07:29, 9 January 2014.
On top of that, straight off of his topic ban he was already irking myself and a few other users with his literal copy-pasting of sources into his non-notable article Mawlid celebrations around the World in addition to providing random citations which didn't verify the text he was adding at another page.
Given his long term history of edit warring, personal attacks, POV pushing to the point of competency issues and his running of a sockpuppet account for six years (again, couldn't make that up - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Msoamu/Archive)...it really just seems hard to assume good faith at this point. This user just doesn't get it. I'm not sure what needs to be done, but something needs to be done. This user offers no positive contributions to the encyclopedia and the rest of us are always stuck cleaning up these messes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) What I don't understand is that if s/he was confirmed to be a sock, why was s/he ever allowed back? Anyway, I definitely think an indef-block would be in order now (btw, s/he is engaging in some pretty creative votestacking at AfD). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Put simply, the Msoamu account is the sockmaster and the other accounts were its socks. The account should've been indeffed in the first place, but no admin was willing to do so right off the bat, and consensus didn't lean that way at that time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• I had done mistakes in the past and have learnt from them during my Ban of six month.I was trying to improve the Article Muslim Students Organization of India MSO in order to save it from deletion.I tried to inform other neutral editors who were involved in previous Afd discussion and my language was totally neutral.The Article was there on wikipedia for more than three years and was properly sourced.I am really sorry for my unintentional comments to inform about recent discussion on this Article.That was not at all a canvassing on my part but an attempt to get wide discussion from neutral editors.Msoamu (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think the biggest and best summary of Msoamu's self-promoting nature comes from their latest post at the AfD; note how there are very few direct links to anything, and of those that are there, they are either trivial assertions, or don't mention MSOAMU in any way, no matter what you look for. Notability is not inherited from the people associated with an organization. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:11, 13 January 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:Ninham9_Gary12

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

---

This user, blocked by User:Mark Arsten, has created hundreds of stubs which need to be deleted as violations of the sockpuppet block. Some, but not all, are tagged for SD. It'll take me forever to delete them all individually. Any ideas? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Some time back I asked for a deletion bot: it would operate off a fully-protected page, you'd have to give a separate link to every page and provide a deletion rationale for every page, and it would delete them with the rationale you gave and mention that it was operating under your orders. I envisioned it primarily for large group AFDs, but mass speedies would also be useful; and since it would be doing precisely what you told it, rather than determining what needed to be deleted, the only false positives would be the result of typos by the admin giving the instructions. Unfortunately, my request was denied because there was some sort of semiautomated tool that can do this, but that doesn't help those of us who don't understand the coding required for these tools. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This is what Special:Nuke is for. I bulk deleted his page creations with it, but a user in good standing had made edits to some of those, so I restored a few pages per his request. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mark, I thought there was a tool out there, but I didn't know where it was Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:56, 12 January 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:Aschwole and repeated copyright violations

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:Aschwole is the same editor as User:Yid and User:Nuklear who were blocked after repeatedly adding copyrighted material about chemical syntheses to drug articles. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Yid, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive615#Repeated_copyright_violations, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nuklear for some of the history. I have reverted some of the recent contributions of Aschwole because they were lifted word-for-word from chemistry books. I haven't yet checked older contributions, but if the pattern holds, many (most?) of them will also be copyright violations. ChemNerd (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I am just adding the synthesis to drug compounds to give me something to do. I have a masters in chemistry but am just lying around the house all day with nothing to do, no job to go to etc. I am not "vandalizing" the pages etc. If you think it is copyright vio or not is open to debate since Lednicer himself has copied the synthesis out of the journal articles and patents that it was linked to. I am just doing it because it gives me something to do. Obviously I would prefer to be in a real job that is offering me decent pay but they have just left me alone at home with nothing to do.

I just want to add also that I am quite insulted that you are accusing me of copyright vio etc and trying to get me blocked/revert my edits etc. I was trying to do a favour and actually improve the pages here, on a voluntary basis, so my work should be regarded and not just try to erase it. This was my serious work, I was not just messing around.--Aschwole (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Your most recent edit [129] appears to be a CopyVio of this text [130]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, see Wikipedia:NOTTHERAPY#Summary "one's psychological state is not an acceptable excuse for disrupting the encyclopedia". JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Um has anyone considered that this is a troll? The username pronounces like "asshole". GiantSnowman 19:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has been considered. There was a previous noticeboard thread concerning this editor's previous name -- "Yid" -- which he vociferously denied was a pejorative term for a Jew, and then either another or the same thread where I pointed out that "Aschwole" seemed to have been chosen as a new name because of its similarity to "asshole". I can look up the thread(s), but the end result was that Aschwole was not blocked, not even for a username violation, which it clearly seems to be to me. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, here's the AN thread about "Aschwole", who is a self-admitted sock of indef-blocked Nuklear as well as of Yid. The discussion with Yid about their user name took place on their talk page here. Why has an editor who used "Yid" and "Aschwole" as usernames, who is the self-confessed sock of an indef-blocked editor, and whose previous screen names have all been responsible for adding copyright violations to the encyclopedia been allowed to run free for so long? Other editors have been hammered for much less. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd happily support an indef block - or even a site ban. Obviously a long-term pest. GiantSnowman 20:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean that my username is offense. What about the user named "Battybot" (possible word play on "Battyboy") for instance that I saw this morning.--Aschwole (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Please do not insult me trying to ban me. This is seriously offensive to do this. I hope that you are able to understand the offense that this has caused me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BattyBot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GoingBatty

See on his userpage, he getting lots of awards & medals etc, not just treating like he is some kind of a troll that is here just to cause trouble.

OK, I'll play along - in what way is "Battybot" being similar to "Battyboy" like "Aschwole" being similar to "Asshole"? You do understand that having chosen an extremely pejorative term for a Jewish person as one of your previous usernames, your hands are hardly clean where usernames are concerned? And you do recall that every one of your previous IDs - or at least the ones that we're aware of - have been cited for adding copyright violations to the encyclopedia, which, incidentally, is what this thread is about. How about a little less about your supposed feelings of "offense" and "insult" and more about why you keep violating a very important Wikipedia policy, despite having been warned numerous times not to do so? BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I'll answer with an indef block. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if an admin with some knowledge of this content would look to see what needs to be removed--I can't even read {JoeSperrazza's linked book. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

While you're at it, after their last couple of edits to their talk page a revocation of talk page and email access is necessary. Blackmane (talk) 12:20, 13 January 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.

Benrudin using Wikipedia for fundraising

Benrudin has been using the Melissa Ann Young article to promote a fundraiser. See his repeated edits here: [131], [132], [133].

He has been warned to keep his fundraising out of Wikipedia: [134]. Please put a stop to this ASAP. 70.134.227.84 (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Have you previously edited with a different account? It's unusual to see somebody subst a template in their third edit and create a new AN/I report on their fourth edit.
• Benrudin's last edit doesn't even mention or link to a fundraiser. Benrudin's edits aren't entirely constructive, but that seems to be through inexperience rather than malice; has anybody tried explaining rather than warning? bobrayner (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not all IPs are idiots, inexperienced editors, or sockpuppets.
• Did you read the edit summaries and the comment added to the warning?
• What do you think the links in the standard warning are for? Hint: The reader can click on them to see a fuller explanation of WP's policy.
• Are you just going to blame me for another editor's violation of WP policy, or are you going to do something about it?

70.134.227.84 (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're concerned about Benrudin "promoting a fundraiser", what exactly would you like other editors to do? Benrudin's last attempt to edit the article didn't mention the fundraiser at all, so where's the problem?

Meanwhile, an inexperienced editor seems to have made several good-faith attempts to add content to an article, failed to meet our standards, got reverted every time, and got three templated warnings. What made you think that the next step should be punishment rather than advice? bobrayner (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You're really not paying much attention, are you? Benrudin has repeatedly ([135], [136], [137], [138]) inserted libelous, unsupported material and spam into the Melissa Ann Young article. He has been reverted by three separate editors ([139], [140], [141]), demonstrating blatant edit warring, and turning a blind eye to the WP policies that have been cited by all three editors. He's already been given "advice" by three editors, via their edit summaries. This is a biography of a living person. We have standards about such articles, don't we? 71.139.156.126 (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you need to relax. First time, I didn't know it violated the rules, second time I thought someone was just removing it out of personal preference, third time I removed any reference to the fundraiser, so your objections should be mute. I could handle your anonymous trolling, but when you accuse me of libel, I feel a need to respond. The only statements I added are in the last paragraph, and are all true. Given libel requires a false statement, my statements are not libel. As for the statements being "unsupported", I would cite them but my source is the fundraiser page and I don't want that information to get deleted again. Finally, for the record, the fundraiser is not mine. benrudin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So the holder of a state-wise pageant title who competed nationally in 2005 is gravely ill. No mention in local news, no facebook groups, no tweets. Just a fundanything.com page, marketed as a "Start Raising Money Today - FOR FREE!" site? This is why we ask for reliable sources for material like this. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Benrudin - Your protestations of innocence are a bit disingenuous. It was always perfectly clear why the material was being removed. Edit summaries of the removals read: "rm unsourced promotional materkal [sic]", "WP is not the place to promote a fundraiser", "rmv unsourced addition per WP:BLP", "rm unsourced information". Moreover, a warning explaining WP policy was issued on your talk page after the second removal, the one you say you thought was done "out of personal preference", the one with the edit summary that said "WP is not the place to promote a fundraiser". You need to pay attention to Wikipedia policies. As Tarc has said, WP requires reliable sources. Please read the WP policy on this. It doesn't matter whether the fundraiser is yours. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote a fundraiser. As to the libel allegation, any time someone accuses a physician of being negligent without one single shred of evidence, that's libel, as was done here and here. 70.134.226.94 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The first time I POSTED it, I was unaware. The second time I posted it, aka after just the first removal, I thought the removal was just personal preference. Third time I posted it, I removed any reference to the fundraiser, so objections should be moot. As for libel, now that you're mentioning the physician, the story told by Melissa Ann Young herself talks about it. In her words, it was negligence, and her story suggests it was even without her use of the word. Are you saying she is committing libel? Don't tell me there's no shred of evidence; you might not find it valuable as evidence, but it's still evidence. benrudin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

An accusation is an accusation, nothing more. It's not evidence, as any qualified attorney could tell you. More importantly, with respect to Wikipedia, a first person accusation is not a reliable source. 70.134.226.94 (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

First-person accusations are admissible as evidence (if the accuser is present), and the jury decides how much weight to give it. More importantly, unless you are saying Melissa Young has committed libel, I have not committed libel, so cut it. Never mind that NOBODY has mentioned the doctor by name. Wikipedia is a private internet organization, it can do whatever it wants to me. That is different from accusing me of a crime or tort. Benrudin (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

With occasional exceptions for really high-profile things (like political controversies), it's not okay to make libelous claims about living people even if you couch it behind "someone else said this, not me." You would need a real source. But this is moot because there's no evidence that the paragraph belongs at all, absent any sources for the supposed health condition. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not libelous for reasons I already said. My point about "someone else said this," is that unless Melissa Young is committing libel, I'm not. I'm not using it as a defense. I'm sorry that you, and apparently Wikipedia, do not believe that a statement from the person in the best position to know what happened is a reliable source. Benrudin (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Soandso did suchandsuch" is statement of fact; "soandso was negligent" is a conclusion. One is OK; the other isn't. It's important to understand the difference. Neither is allowed in Wikipedia without a RELIABLE SOURCE. 70.134.226.94 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Not allowed on Wikipedia" does not mean it is libel. If the difference you cite were the lynchpin, you ought to follow your own advice: "Soandso said suchandsuch" is "statement of fact"; "soandso said something libelous" is a "conclusion". I'm sorry that you, and apparently Wikipedia, do not believe that a statement from the person in the best position to know what happened is a reliable source. Benrudin (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Derby (cricket)

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've listed this for closure at WP:AN a few days ago with no action. this is an AfD that now has gone over 12 days and requires closure. thanks. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Listed at WP:ANRFC. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done. De728631 (talk) 13:06, 13 January 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.

WP:NLT

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

---

Can someone familiar with WP:NLT examine this edit[142] and decide how best to handle this? All I did was move a new discussion from the top of the talk page to the bottom (as is normal practice), and apparently, when their lawyer is finished with me, I'll be found in violation of copyright laws. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for 1 week by Drmies. Mike V • Talk 01:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, while I was making a delicious bean soup with kale, like it was nothing. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You guys have no sense of humor... Anyway, blocking a troll is never too bad. - Altenmann >t 02:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Universe_Daily 207.38.156.219 (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Erpert - Do you honestly think that was the real Peter Capaldi and Steven Moffat making those posts? ;-) Thrub (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is closed, which means no further comments. Therefore, I am archiving the above comment. Epicgenius (talk) 14:24, 13 January 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:75.104.131.93

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.

---

Would someone please check the recent history of Zero-point energy and undertake some action if needed. The user was warned yesterday and will be now notified of this thread. I can not really revert everything they take out or introduce to the article, calling it "German propaganda". Note that I am not German. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

{{subst:uw-ewblock|time=48 hours}}, since the user just kept going despite warnings; it's not a 3RR violation (by about six minutes), but an edit-warring block may be levied in non-3RR situations. Nyttend (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 13 January 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.

Tendentious edit-warring IP

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 Special:Contributions/14.198.220.253, a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring [143] and the recent edit history of our article on Richard Feynman where the IP has continued to edit-war over the article. And then see User talk:14.198.220.253, where multiple contributors have raised issues with the IPs behaviour. And then see a thread at Template talk:Hidden archive top, [144] which the IP seems to think is an appropriate place to discuss changes to talk page guidelines, and basically anounces that they are going to change guidelinesregarding hatting unless someone objects on this obscure talk page. Looking through the IPs edit history, I can see little evidence of significant useful contributions, and a great deal of evidence that the IP will argue (in confusing language - see for example [145]) about anything and everything, with little concern for the aims of Wikipedia - to create an informative encyclopaedia. Right from their first posts, the IP had to be warned about their edit-warring behaviour (see this thread [146] at Talk:Scientific consensus - which probably explains the attempt to revise guidelines on hatting). I think WP:NOTHERE just about about sums it up (since WP:ONLYHERETOARGUE is unfortunately a redlink) and an indefinite block would be for the best. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

the IP had to be warned about their edit-warring behaviour (see this thread [147] at Talk:Scientific consensus - which probably explains the attempt to revise guidelines on hatting)

That's correct, it is the first time I legitimately fell into edit-war by strongly defective editors (who refuse to comment my edit throughout the discussion) and it is resolved. You can see the discussion over there that it is legitimately hatted due to the fact that the discussion is not WP:FOC. So I legitimately learned that when to hat a discussion is legitimate.

Also, I carefully requested comments from those who (apparently) disagreed with me to talk page before I even touch and edit the template documentation(which no one cares, according to Andy).

See Special:Contributions/14.198.220.253, a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring [148] and the recent edit history of our article on Richard Feynman where the IP has continued to edit-war over the article. And then see User talk:14.198.220.253, where multiple contributors have raised issues with the IPs behaviour.

So I compromised with this one, it is reverted in less than a minute by Twsx, here you can see his/her contribution log that, not only his/her quick decision is suspicious. S/he is making multiple reverts in a matter of minute, as evident as you can verify on the contribution log.

So I finally decided that I should good-faith revert this one and kindly ask Twsx to comment (does it count as tendentious IP edit-warring?) May add more later, thanks. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

[149] which the IP seems to think is an appropriate place to discuss changes to talk page guidelines, and basically anounces that they are going to change guidelinesregarding hatting unless someone objects on this obscure talk page

WP:AGF applies to you, I simply aint proclaiming or discussing a change on guidelines or rules, just template documentation. Maybe you can read the talk 3 or 4 times to see if who stayed correct. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"strongly defective editors"? If this isn't evidence of a lack of necessary competence in the English language, it is evidence of crass obnoxiousness. And what exactly is "suspicious" about reverting an edit-warring contributor who point-blank refuses to use the article talk page being reverted? This looks to me to be further evidence of the sort of behaviour we can well do without. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You can read the funny discussion on SciCon 3 or 4 times you can see that there is no nothing about the edit except "it is not an improvement".

Some editors also violate BRD by bullshiting newcomers(old me) with "consensus version", as clearly documented as invalid in WP:BRD. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

On "suspicious", I have no interest to debate, just take a look at 1. the time taken between the edit and 2. Tswx contribution log. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thus far, the contribution history of 14.198.220.253 (talk) is that of a combative, tendentious editor who is having great difficulty in adapting to this collaborative editing environment. I see little or no constructive contribution, and a seemingly limitless capacity to create and sustain conflict. IP editor, do you see any issues with your approach thus far? Is there any reason we should expect things to improve? MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It is simple, just count how many warnings that is given out is legitimate. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I see little or no constructive contribution

MastCell, please don't look down on the editors who do rhetoric or small (but thoughtful) contribution, I think these are called wikignome. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Andy that we have a problem here. The IP is aggressive and "always right", making changes to articles and categories without attempting to obtain consensus on talk pages if challenged, and sometimes reacting in difficult to understand English. Looking over the IPs edit contribution, the number of edits that are simple reverts of others' edits is surprisingly high. --Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, my take is very simple, (I note that my contribution that Randykitty disagreed is still legitimately passed and unchallenged, they are there and improved) just count how many times I finally jump into DRN, ANI or whatsoever and legitimately blocked by admin, the warnings are where the warnings go, none of them is legitimate edit-warring. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The IP is aggressive and "always right", making changes to articles and categories without attempting to obtain consensus on talk pages if challenged

If the article is not locked, then it is a good thing to be WP:bold. Also, most categories are chaotic, I don't blame you because it is not common knowledge that categories must adhere WP:DEFINING characteristics. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think you understand how things are done here. I reverted you twice and then stopped, because unlike you, I have not much inclination for edit wars (I won't say it never happens, but it's extremely rare). And because of that you call your edits "legitimate" and "unchallenged". Wrong. I challenged them and you should have gone to the article talk page to discuss things (per WP:BOLD) before continuing with your contentious editing. Also you seem to think that as long as you don't revert three times in a row, you're not edit warring. Sorry, that's wrong, too. Read WP:3RR. It's clear that you are here with some kind of battlefield mentality and perhaps you think this is a game with some "winning" and others "losing". That's wrong, too: we're here to build a collaborative encyclopedia and if people are unwilling to collaborate, the encyclopedia and we all lose. --Randykitty (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

And on Richard Feynman you're by now way beyond 3RR. --Randykitty (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I challenged them and you should have gone to the article talk page to discuss things (per WP:BOLD) before continuing with your contentious editing.

Interesting, if you don't want my edit, then why don't you just report me then? You just let my edit just stick there, I wonder why, because it is a legitimate improvement? That's why I use the word "legitimate" often, it is not arrogance, it is something that you can verify. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate this editor's good will but this person is violating WP:3RR at Template:Open access navbox. This issue is separate from what is discussed above. Persons who wish to make edits challenged by others should go to the talk page and make an argument. Without meaningful conversation there is no progress. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey there is 24hrs difference between the 3, also, should we count this as GF-revert, as you can see on [Libre]],

Libre /ˈliːbrə/ is a loan word in English borrowed from French. As it does in that language, "libre" in English denotes "the state of being free", as in "having freedom" or "liberty".

I think, I have more than enough reason to accuse you deliberately lied (since you said "it is community joke", as if you are not some outsider) in effort to disrupt my edit. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Further evidence of the IPs tendentious behaviour, at Talk:Richard Feynman. [150] Deciphering the usual garbled English, the IP seems to be objecting to the fact that James Gleick, the Pulitzer-Prize-winning science writer, has entitled his biography Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, and wishes Wikipedia to make it clear that the suggestion that the Nobel-prize-winning physicist was a genius is opinion, rather than objective fact. Which of course Wikipedia doesn't state anyway, if for no other reasons than (a) there is no consensus definition of 'genius' that I'm aware of, and (b) if there were, and it didn't include Feynman, it would be total bollocks. Utterly clueless... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

0. I didn't say or suggest that he is not a genius. 1. a person with 125 IQ is not objectively a genius. 2. If it is common opinion, you can edit "it is common that.." or whatever you like. 3. Just read the talk and see if who is correct, whether I am in GF or not. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed it looks like this editor has some kind of agenda to do everything by the book except to follow the spirit of the wp:BRD no-policy/no-guideline:

• "it is not just doubt, It is so doubtful that is not worthwhile quoting." (upon my invitation "Better take your doubts to the talk page")
• "If an edit is legitimate, then talk it to talk page? I will confess if you can turn BRD into policy." (upon my "Then take it to the article talk page. See wp:BRD")
• "since Andy wordplayed me with 'doubt' and RS while I clearly explained the problem is on accuracy. This should compromise", an i.m.o. rather pointy and gaming-the-system kind of edit, and assuming bad faith from the part of user AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs).

To me this looks like someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia in a very collaborative manner - DVdm (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You are correct, I am not in GF with you and just you because I don't think you are in GF either. How about we see the sentence with different bold, "since Andy wordplayed me with 'doubt' and RS while I clearly explained the problem is on accuracy. This should compromise" --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I agree with Andy's assessment, but unfortunately it isn't possible to indef-block an IP. A block of long duration (a few months or even a year) would suffice though. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, then it is very unfortunate, not just for me but Wikipedia, it contributes to this claim that it makes it more sound than ever. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's "very unfortunate" that you failed to live up to your end of the bargain. When you clicked "Save" the first time and every time since, you agreed to the principles of Wikipedia - yet, your behaviours are 180 degrees contrary to them. You're author of your own fate ES&L 20:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Nothing is more annoying than someone who edit wars while demanding that their opponent not edit war. Except for someone who does it all the time. A look through their edits shows that they are becoming increasingly disrputive, and there is no evidence they are taking any constructive criticism onboard. IP blocked for a month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Floq. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 13 January 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.

Block evasion by User:Darkknight68

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.

---

Now editing as User:HangingCurvesuck. Offensive username intended to harass another editor, completely unacceptable talk page post here [151] which WP:QUACKS rather loudly, as do the ten post-and-revert edits that make up the rest of the account's history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

How utterly childish behaviour ES&L 18:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. -- John Reaves 18:36, 13 January 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.

Just discovered this--apparently this happened while I was asleep. For those who don't know, this is actually Safwwefe (talk · contribs), who was banned in 2009 for a graphic death threat against President Obama. He's been trolling me for several months since I was the one who indef'd him when I was still an admin (I was Blueboy96 at the time). Thanks for this. And if you're reading this, Safwwefe, this is your only warning--if you try this again, I will have no choice but to take whatever means I deem necessary to protect myself, up to and including legal action. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible hacked account

Hi all- I think that User:Padraig Singal may have been hacked. Diffs 1 2 3 and 4 lead to my idea; there's four strange things about this case though-- Padraig seems to only be vandalizing on User:Armaan Ladak's user page. The other weird thing is that Padraig requested page protection of their own page after they vandalized Armaan's page (4). A third strange thing is that the same IP users (User:‎142.150.33.116 and User:142.150.33.133) are vandalizing Padraig's and Armaan's pages (Padraig's userpage history, Armaan's userpage history). And finally, a fourth weird thing about this case is that Padraig is a regular contributing user, not a vandalism-only account. I hope this all makes sense, and if any clarification is needed, don't be afraid to ask :)

-Newyorkadam (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Since Padraig was a regular good-faith contributor, and was taking my counter-vandalism course, his recent edits imply a compromised account. Ross HillTalk to me! 20:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the edits are suspicious and suggest that the account has been compromised. As such, I performed a checkuser but unfortunately the edits in question were made from the same IP that Padraig Singal (talk · contribs) has been using for some time now. Given these results there are only two options: (1) the user made these edits or (2) they left their computer logged in and a housemate made the edits. Unfortunately, there isn't really a way to conclusively say one way or another. Tiptoety ^talk 22:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So, what do you suggest we do? Just wait and see if Padraig makes any other edits? -Newyorkadam (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

One other thing... If the vandalizing IP's were Padraig's, why would Padraig vandalize their own userpage? -Newyorkadam (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Look at this diff. Is this something that a new user would know how to do? I've been here since 2006 and still don't understand the <div></div> stuff. Unless an experienced Wikipedian broke into Padraig's house, stole his laptop, hacked his phone, etc., these edits can only have been made by Padraig himself. This looks to me like a Robdurbar situation, minus the admin tools. Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point. I also noticed that in the diff you gave, Padraig wrote "This user is from Canada". On Padraig's userpage (the real one, not the vandalized one), Padraig mentions that they are from Canada. -Newyorkadam (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

@Nyttend: Divs are HTML, and the style stuff is CSS; it's not Wikimarkup or otherwise exclusive to Wikipedia. It's eminently possible for a newbie to Wikipedia to know how to use them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hm, okay, but what about the |link=Canada part? That's definitely part of the MW code. On top of that, the heart image is totally unused (aside from three pages at de:wp), and an experienced user would be more likely to know the Commons category system than a newbie would. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the floating Canada maple leaf was copied from another userpage (I've seen it on someone else's userpage but it escapes me who it was, at the moment). Copying aspects of other users' userpages is something any newbie can do. Ross HillTalk to me! 00:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for all this confusion, everybody! My computer was left open, and a friend made these edits while I was in the washroom. So no, my account hasn't been compromised... It has just been vandalized by a friend. I will take steps to prevent this from happening again in the future. Padraig Singal | ✉ 02:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:BROTHER, Im just glad your account was not blocked >.<. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Padraig, I think you are confused. You are saying that someone, other than yourself, edited using your account yet somehow your account was never (and is not currently) compromised. Instead, you just described a compromised account to the letter. A compromised account is one that has been used by someone other than the original account holder. More times than not these accounts are outright blocked and generally not unblocked as there is little way to prove that the original account hold is still in control (passwords can be changed). While I am not going to block your account, I will remind you that account security is your obligation alone. Do not leave your account logged in if you can not guarantee it will be secure. This excuse will not work next time, so please let this be the last. Tiptoety ^talk 05:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

193.169.86.13 imitating another 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.

---

193.169.86.13 (talk · contribs) is following my edits and seems to be trying to make me think he's the user The Rambling Man editing while logged off. I don't buy it. Please block 193.169.86.13 at your earliest convenience. Danke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you please post some diffs as examples? -Newyorkadam (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

He only has about 10 edits under that IP. This one, in particular echoes comments TRM made repeatedly in the recent discussion here. And it's the editor's first post in 5 days, coming less than an hour after I asked for a conclusion of the topic ban. So there's no question the IP is following my edits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The IP knows TRM is following my edits, and by likewise following, he's trying to trick me into thinking that it's TRM socking. Here is an edit of mine which TRM followed up on, a totally legitimate correction on his part. The IP (as with that recent series of 54's) is up to no good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no policy reason for blocking them or reverting their edits. If you don't like what they have to say, ignore it. NE Ent 23:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Why would you defend someone who's impersonating an admin? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The IP isn't. -- John Reaves 00:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Isn't what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how he's impersonating an admin. I don't see how he's doing anything wrong. Ignore, for now. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I've had various experiences of IP's imitating other users, so I know it when I see it. If you're not willing to do anything about this one for now, at least I've brought it to your attention. Thank you for your kind consideration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I've checked all of the IP's contributions for this year (last year's were quite unrelated), and I don't understand why you'd say he's impersonating anyone. This edit and this one reply to something TRM's said, and an "I find that hard to believe" response to TRM (even though redacted in the second edit) is precisely what you do to convince someone that you're different. Note that I'm not trying to imply that they're the same, either. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see it either, Bugs, though I dig where you're coming from. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I am a long time reader of the Ref Desk, but seldom edit. I saw this edit and thought it to be highly inappropriate, and unrelated to the discussion of a popular book. I said so here in small print, and also at another page...I can't find that was linked to the BBB user in his history. I think these onging, nonstop antics are a disruption to the ref desk, and I said so. If I did something wrong, I apologize. 193.169.86.13 (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ip editor, on first impression, you did nothing wrong.

Bugs - I know why you started to think that, but the evidence seems unrelated. Please listen to the apparently unrelated / uninvolved IP's independent opinion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

So be it. But at least I've raised your awareness, so you can be on the alert for any additional copycat behavior that an IP might engage in. Oddly enough, he did so in his statement above, in which he beat that same drum, accusing me of "ongoing nonstop antics", despite my recent attempts to keep to the straight and narrow. TRM likewise continues to make the same complaint. The IP is a copycat, a parrot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. Thanks to Nyttend for notifying me of this thread and to see Bugs using it as yet another opportunity to bad-mouth me (really, Bugs, you need to learn what constitutes a personal attack before editing other people's comments, you really do). As for the IP, well it would appear that he/she holds the same valid opinion. As for "imitating an admin", I'm not sure how that can be possible, IPs cannot be admins, it's impossible. I think you're confusing "imitating an admin" and "imitating an editor". As for interaction ban, if you or Medeis decide to answer questions at the Ref desk incorrectly, you should expect to be corrected, as has happened twice in the past couple of weeks. Now let's not let this descend into yet another car-crash of an AN/I thread, Bugs you go back to your RD, I'll get back to the articles. Time to move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Okay, let's close this before another argument starts, hmmm? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:46, 14 January 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.

Wrong rename method

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, BP Logix, Inc. has been renamed wrongly. It was changed into a redirect and a new page was made. Could an admin please combine the two page histories. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- John Reaves 04:09, 14 January 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.

What should I do about personal attacks?

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

---

[152] Should I just let it go? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

User notified with ping.@Nomoskedasticity: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, you should, that would be wonderful. Thanks for offering. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Just let it be. KonveyorBelt 01:55, 14 January 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.

CensoredScribe's categories

This excruciatingly long-running dispute between two editors has ended due to both editing disruptively for too long and behaving too badly on a noticeboard for too long. Both have been blocked for 72 hours. CensoredScribe is additionally community sanctioned to only create new categories with appropriate consensus first. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Subsections dealt with. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Forgive me for not knowing the correct page to request assistance for wikihounding. Ryulong is reverting all of my recent edits; I have informed Jimmie Wales that Category:Slave owner is valid. It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia this wasn't already a category. They are also reverting my edits to terrorism; Category:Individuals designated as terrorist by the United Kingdom government is as valid as the one for the U.S. CensoredScribe (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC) (I have moved this entry from the top of the page to the bottom, where new threads should go - it is unlikely to be noticed at the top) CensoredScribe, if you think a category is valid, argue the case for it properly. 'Informing Jimmie Wales' isn't the way to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC) CensoredScribe has a history of creating categories that do not meet Wikipedia's standards, and in the past couple of days created and curated the following: Category:Slave owner (adding the first four American presidents to the category) Category:Terrorist Category:Individuals designated as terrorist by the United Kingdom government (only previously inhabited by Osama bin Ladin) Category:Fictional religious figures Category:Fictional headless Category:Fictional heartless Category:Fictional characters with ki abilities Category:Artificial souls in fiction Category:Fictional characters who absorb souls He also saw fit to attempt to repopulate the long and repeatedly deleted category Category:Fictional terrorists. It seems that he decided to beat me to the punch about starting an ANI thread on him after I found out he tried to whine about me to Jimbo. What we need to do is prevent CensoredScribe from continuing to make bunk categories that are only populated based on his own personal interpretation of the work of fiction or history. How the hell is Optimus Prime a religious figure? Really.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Also Category:Fictional multidimensionals? Category:Homonculi in fiction? All this? CensoredScribe, really. And based on the thread I found on his talk page started by SummerPhD that this is not the first time CensoredScribe has been brought to ANI and that I am not the first person to have to clean up after him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC) I was going to wait a bit on this, but I guess while we're here... Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive827#User:CensoredScribe_overcategorizing This has been an on-going problem. (Having not examined Ryulong's edits, I have no opinion on them specifically.) See also: User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Fictional_sexists, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Inappropriate_categories, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Brain_transplant_in_fiction, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Body_swapping_in_fiction, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Your_categories, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Fictional_characters_with_radiation_abilities, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Categories. As most of Censored's categories were "created" merely by populating them and deleted by depopulating, we don't have as many deletion discussions as we would otherwise. Nevertheless, there seems to be an inordinate need to run around cleaning up some frankly absurd categories. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC) I missed a couple: User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Alternative_reproduction_in_fiction, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Fictional_sexists, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Category:Single-race_worlds. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC) I've now unpopulated Category:Synthetic biology in fiction and Category:Fictional soulless. These categories are all ridiculous. This all reminds me of Tyciol (talk · contribs), too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Also, in this edit to Jimbo's talk page, CensoredScribe claims he was blocked previously, when no blocks can be found on his account. This suggests that he is a sockpuppet of an editor we have previously banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Another relevant thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#CensoredScribe.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Um, it does seem that CensoredScribe misunderstands what Wikipedia is for: Category:Fictional headless - for "characters in fiction without heads"? Presumably including Thomas the Tank Engine, 'Thing' from the Addams Family TV series, and the sentient ocean in Stanislaw Lem's Solaris. Possibly usable as an addition to the existing classifications in Jorge Luis Borges' Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge, but of precisely zero encyclopaedic merit. While I could imagine that there might be a case for the first two categories listed above, the rest appear to be junk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Try Levineps (talk · contribs): Levineps was blocked in December, and CensoredScribe (talk · contribs)'s sudden interest in creating oddball categories manifested itself in January. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Levineps/Archive. --Calton | Talk 06:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC) CensoredScribe was active as early as March 2013, though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Yes. And to repeat: "CensoredScribe (talk · contribs)'s sudden interest in creating oddball categories manifested itself in January". CensoredScribe category edits in 2013: zero (0).--Calton | Talk 07:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC) People without hands is a category; religious figure should have been called fictional founders of religions and fictional subjects of prophecy. I admit that like alternative reproduction it is far too vague to be of use. Similarly sexist is too subjective; unlike the soul categories which are more akin to super powers; souls being more of a fictional physics issue than having anything to do with emotions like sexism. I think anyone who spent time looking for Osama Bin Laden would not contest he was considered a terrorist in the U.K. I think the U.S. terrorism category without a solid definition of terrorism is effectively a murder death killer list. CensoredScribe (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC) You created Category:Mythological rapists, Category:Fictional telekenetics, and Category:Artificial uterus in fiction. What purpose do these categories serve?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Note: second category speedy moved to Category:Fictional telekinetics due to spelling error. — Scott • talk 22:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC) I am getting the sense from you that the main problem here was that he started categories about science fiction, and since science fiction is a fundamentally worthless genre and interest, he should be banned from adding anything more about it. But I think it is interesting to compare and contrast the myths and stories of mankind, and I hope these categories flourish. It is difficult to populate any category fully, but I think these have a fair chance of becoming relatively complete. Wnt (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC) @Wnt: Seeing as Ryulong edits actively in the manga, anime, and video game spaces, it has nothing to do with whether science fiction is fundamentally worthless. Please do not assume such. --Izno (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC) There's some serious overcategorization, no doubt, but (I've said this before, perhaps in another ANI thread?) that's not to say that all are worthless. Mythological rapists is a viable and important category, as is Mythological rape victims. Did I see someone say "science fiction is a fundamentally worthless genre"? I don't like to invoke IDONTLIKEIT or use profanity, but what the fuck? Drmies (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC) That was just me getting high on the dramatic atmosphere of this place; my intent was to criticize the way in which someone is being treated as if they actually did something wrong based on no tangible criterion that I can see here. Wnt (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Alright then. Come down from that cloud or my boss, an expert in science fiction, will egg your house--and he doesn't stop at $20,000. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Formal proposal for a topic ban No consensus for the bare topic ban on CensoredScribe creating new categories. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I think, given what we've seen here, and given the comments in the last ANI thread [153], that there are quite sufficient grounds to make a formal proposal that CensoredScribe be topic-banned from creating new categories. It is totally untenable to allow such time-wasting behaviour to continue. Support as proposer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Support, as none of the categories created by CensoredScribe have any purpose on Wikipedia whatsoever and he refuses to acknowledge his misdoings.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Support. This is really becoming ridiculous. I also suggest that CS watch out for the boomerang (it's not often that you see an editor tell on himself). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 09:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC) I changed the section title as it was just my username and this was becoming more about him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Support, the categories CensoredScribe creates are ridiculous and the articles he populates those categories with hardly ever make sense. I would point out though, that his editing in other areas is sometimes equally problematic, so I'm not sure if this solves the problem or just moves it to another area.--Atlan (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Support as random, useless, bizarre categories have no place - they're meant to categorize by common traits. CS simply refuses to stop when asked nicely and as such, protection is required ES&L 09:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC) CensoredScribe has run off crying to Drmies now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Take it easy, Ryulong. Everyone sometimes needs a shoulder to cry on. You may visit that happy place too, if you like. I think CensoredScribe is of good faith, though I also think they're out of their league in category creation. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Well he tried Jimbo before you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Seems like progress is being made. Snowolf How can I help? 22:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Support - haven't got anything more to add than what people have already said, other than that this behaviour is utterly inappropriate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose. I don't know how Wikipedia got to be a place where people feel afraid to start a category, but can go ahead and spam an infobox linking 200 songs to 200 other songs by the same author so that nobody can look up on Google what the two have in common because it's all a mass of false positives! There is nothing against policy about these categories - no reason why having them would harm the encyclopedia - just a few editors saying they're outlandish. Why can't you be happy enough crowing about how Wikipedia will never have a category about slave owners (which is a disgrace) without having to wreak vengeance on the guy who suggested the idea? Wnt (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Policy? "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia". [154] The creation of arbitrary and nonsensical categories is incompatible with the stated objectives of the project. And of course its harmful - readers don't expect to be confronted with nonsense in articles, and such material distracts from useful content. As for the 'slave owner' category, if you think it is merited, argue the case for it properly. Come to that, a topic ban as I proposed it wouldn't actually prevent CensoredScribe doing the same thing. Which is exactly the point I made when CensoredScribe first posted on Jimbo's talk page - whining about 'censorship' before you've even put forward a rational argument isn't the way to achieve anything.AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC) The "slave owner" one is a potentially valid category. "Mythological rapists", however, is most certainly not, nor is "Artificial uterus in fiction" - the last one being utterly bizarre, and there are no logical reasons for it that I can think of (and very few illogical ones either). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Rape in mythology is a topic of serious scholarly research, as the most basic search of academic literature will show you. It stands to reason that a classification of mythological rapists could be encyclopedic. But you know what? This is a discussion that should be held at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, where those with interest in and knowledge of the subject matter are more likely to see it, not here at WP:ANI where content disputes have no place. This goes for many of the other categories mentioned here. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose. Some of the categories people are complaining about here seem quite sensible, at least at first glance. These are clearly content disputes and should have been taken to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, not depopulated and immediately speedy-deleted in violation of WP:CSD#C1. Category:Slave owner in particular was speedily deleted only a couple hours after being depopulated, making this at best administratorial negligence and at worst willful abuse of the tools. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC) As above - what possible purpose could "Artificial uterus in fiction" serve? None whatsoever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC) If you're familiar with the literature (or lack thereof) on the subject, then I defer to your judgment on this particular point. (For all I know artificial uteruses are a common enough theme in science fiction that a category might be useful here.) However, given your comments upthread I suspect your (and others') opposition is grounded less in subject-matter knowledge than it is in some personal disdain for the topic. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC) That's ridiculous. What subject matter do people have a disdain for according to you? Fiction? Artificial uteri? Greek mythology? Sword fighters? That's a pretty disdainful person, that dislikes such a wide variety of subjects.--Atlan (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC) It's probably a bad idea to risk siccing a pack of hounds on good content, but we actually have an extensive section of Artificial_uterus#In_fiction. Now of course, CensoredScribe's mistake was that he tried adding such articles to a category. Had he merely created a navbox template with a link to this article section at top and each of the thirty articles linked at bottom, so that anybody on Bing trying to look more about the artificial womb in a Philip K. Dick novel would get tons of hits about Dune and Star Wars, well that would be the way things are done around here. Wnt (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Rather than trying to tar me with the "he doesn't think the category is valid, therefore he hates the subject area", a little research would show that I voted to delete one of the other rape-related categories. Artificial uteruses don't justify an infobox or a category, so you need to stop trolling, Wnt. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC) I did not specifically say that you are biased. I suspect bias, but how can I tell? The problem is, when you make a statement that they don't "justify" a category -- what is that based on? Is there some verifiable source, some policy test, that clarifies that it is a bad choice, or is it personal opinion only? Because if you could point to such a criterion and tell people to use it, you'd have something a lot more effective than a purely arbitrary topic ban on one editor. Wnt (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Update: Xezbeth, the administrator who deleted Category:Slave owner agrees that it should not have been deleted under WP:CSD#C1; however, they since discovered that it is a minor rewording of a category which was already legitimately deleted via CfD. Still I think we should take it on good faith that CensoredScribe, like Xezbeth, was unaware of this previous discussion before creating the category. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC) That didn't stop him from trying to populate Category:Fictional terrorists after being told multiple times that he was cherry picking, and that the category has been deleted multiple times.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Yeah, deleted multiple times. To precise, a total of three votes for deletion at [155], which have been used to justify deleting the category three times. So there are as many people who saw fit to start the category on their own initiative as ever voted to delete it! I recognize that Category:terrorists may be problematic on account of partisan differences, BLP, etc., but fictional terrorists usually come with a clear label. Wnt (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC) I don't know. The Shredder, Lex Luthor, Doctor Robotnik, and Sylar from Heroes don't seem to have much in common nor have they ever been explicitly called terrorists.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC) These are per-article content decisions: add that article to the category or not. They shouldn't be made by having someone barely think about it and say, oh, it would be hard. I bet that if they are terrorists, the die-hard fans who frequent such articles could rattle off chapter and verse where there was an APB out on them for it. In any case, trying to add things to this category is in no way "bad behavior", it is just a content decision he made differently from you. It isn't right to say that you disagreed with somebody ten times, so you can block him. Either have a clear policy you can say he broke and which people making categories need to learn and be able to apply on their own, or else just accept he disagrees with you. Wnt (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Did he make these edits in good faith? Yes. Is he breaking things more than he's fixing them? Yes. Can we solve this by topic banning him from creating categories (without some sort of vetting service or someone to consult and ask "do you think this sounds like a good category idea? here are some pages I think will fit")? Yes. I don't see any loss here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC) How does he go from edits in good faith to topic ban? How does he go from making edits you disagree with to "breaking" things? You seem to be implying that his editing on the point was hopelessly incompetent, yet I see no objective standard to support anything but that he had one opinion and you had another. I see no advice I could give for editors to become more "competent" at adding categories except to "do whatever ryulong says, and try to guess what he doesn't like, and preferably, never touch a category at all for any reason whatsoever." Wnt (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC) AFAICT, no one is saying they are editing in bad faith, this seems to be entirely about competence. How to be more competent? They need to stop with the WP:SYN. A (the Emperor had "slaves") + B (Darth Vader killed the Emperor) = C (Darth Vader is a fictional abolitionist). A (Darth Vader used a Light Saber) + B (a Light Saber is kinda like a sword) = C (Darth Vader is a fictional swordsman). A (something like a religious "prophecy" in the prequals said a figure would balance the Force) + B (Darth Vader was maybe sorta kinda that figure) = C (Darth Vader is a fictional religious figure). There are plenty more in that one article. There are plenty of similar stories in other articles. It's clearly been a problem and will clearly continue to be one as they show no sign of stopping. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Well, the thing is, all the categories involve some amount of SYN, even something as simple as "American abolitionist", because a source may not use those two words in a row. There are indeed huge problems with POV controversies, like the people who for a while had Islamophobia as a variety of Racism, at least on Commons. And even though Anakin Skywalker did say "I had a dream I was a Jedi. I came back and freed all the slaves...", listing him as an abolitionist is still pretty questionable. The thing is, I don't see why the "questioning" has to amount to a ban, rather than simply a contrary edit. I doubt the categories can live up to the same standard as other encyclopedic content, nor do they. Wnt (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Support There's no reason to create utterly useless and nonsensical categories for us to waste time cleaning up. Time for CS to start doing something more constructive. Weak oppose Changed to weak oppose per not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose Some of the categories are bogus, no question, but some are borderline and a number of them seem perfectly valid to me. I also agree with the point that this is first and foremost essentially a content dispute that should be handled via Categories for Deletion. Matt Deres (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose Without going on at great length, I find at least some of the categories to be creative and useful and I think the others should be handled through CfD rather than mass revert. In particular, I found myself defending "Fictional religious figures" (though I think needs clarification, perhaps "Figures in fictional religions"?) to Ryūlóng at Yoda before they mentioned this discussion to me. Dwpaul Talk 17:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose and instruct the editor that since there is an opposition to their activities, they must read carefully the rules about category creation and discuss with other wikipedians the proposed categories. Also (I didn't check myself) we probably have to clarify our rules about "fictional" categories. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Support This editor has had plenty of opportunity to read the relevant policies but instead of trying to understand the policies they are now WP:FORUMSHOPPING for more inappropriate cats in threads like this one Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#Categories about amputations and souls. There are so many ways to edit productively around here that a ban regarding cats may let CS become a better editor in the long run. MarnetteD | Talk 19:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Support, since this editor's activity is a timesink; reviving the SPI may not be a bad idea either. Miniapolis 22:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Support - I agree with Drmies that there doesn't seem to be any bad faith on CensoredScribe's part, but also that he really doesn't seem to understand why what he's doing is disruptive. I'd say that there is a CIR problem here, and would suggest that he be given an "out" from the topic ban if he is taken on by a mentor well-versed in the intricacies of categories. That is, put the topic ban in place, with the standard 3 or 6 month time period, but allow him to petition for early release from the ban if he's found a mentor to tutor him. BMK (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose - I'm glad someone finally mentioned that wikipedia has a page called categories for discussion; which during the last thread no one ever brought up. I kept wondering what that page was called. Googling categories for creation or category proposals does not bring up the right page, you have to use the word discussion. Thank you for directing me to the correct page to propose categories Psychonaut. I do not contest a block from editing fiction, wikipedia is not a place to rant about how bad the star wars prequels were on multiple levels; though most of the categories I added to starwars are still up there because they were correct. However I will oppose a block to any other topic; including mythology where I have contributed lasting well referenced material of use to others. Most of the worthlessly vague, obscure and subjective categories like fictional sexists alternative reproduction in fiction and single race planets I depopulated myself once I realized how few examples there were. Artificial reproduction in fiction became two definable categories however, artificial uterus and homonculi in fiction. I do suspect that half these categories involving souls is the reason such a fuss is being made; I have probably qualified for the goth cup preliminaries by now. The creation of Category:Slave owners being opposed strikes me as extremely disturbing, it's probably because it will be the single largest category on Wikipedia if made; given how recently slavery was made illegal. People considered terrorists by the UK government is as valid as the category for U.S. terrorists; by which I mean they are both worthless categories. Terrorist is as subjective as sexist; those terms describe emotions not actions. The category terrorist would have terrorists by country as a subcategory; otherwise Osama Bin Laden is going to be listed as being two dozen different categories of terrorists for each country that considered him as such. As the page Definitions of terrorism says, "There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term terrorism." That terrorism requires an extra page just for definitions should be the proof of how poorly thought out, extra legal and unencyclopedic the concept is. Wikipedia would not start listing people as thought criminals or murder death killers if that was the term being used in the media; because that's dumb; like the word terrorism. What other pages actually do this? It's even worse than the pages titled blank controversy. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Comment This guy strikes me as pretty reasonable. I am wondering whether anyone tried to discuss the issue with him before hitting with a sledgehammer? If yes, them why it is not mentioned here? If not, then someone needs a good slapping by a wet trout for not following the dispute resolution guideline. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Did you see that there are several threads on his talk page on this subject, to which he did not respond? BMK (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC) There was also a previous AN/I thread he was notified of, but did not participate in . BMK (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion says the page is only for deletion, merging, and renaming it does not mention proposing new categories. Ryulong said oppose twice, also I did not say John Adams was a slave owner because he never was; he opposed slavery. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC) And then there's this. While this discussion is on-going, we have a new category with one member. The category might make sense. However, the one entry does not, unless a "Mudokon" freeing other Mudokons can be said to be part of the movement to end the treatment of people as property. (Yes, I'm risking my creds to say that Mudokons are not people.) Heck, maybe we should add him as a fictional animal rights activist? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC) On the plus side, at least he's discussing this one first. SMH - SummerPhD (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Support per MarnetteD and others. Previous warnings seem to have failed, and there were some rather odd categories created by CS. APerson (talk!) 03:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Strongly support a topic ban or mandatory adoption (not it). Continuing to add WP:SYN categories while this discussion is on-going seals it for me. They simply do not see what the problem is. As a result, there is simply no way to not expect this to be an on-going problem. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Support unless Drmies' suggestion below gains traction. I wasn't paying any attention to this until I discovered the creation of Category:Mythological abolitionists with the editor adding this to Moses using the edit summary "Super best friends :0". Now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 1. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose I'd like to see some data on this concept that a ban will make some a better editor; it's seems more likely to me that a ban is likely to make someone a non-contributor. NE Ent 12:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Why would you think that the purpose of a ban is to "make someone a better editor"? The purpose of a ban is to stop disruptive editing. Sure, it may, perhaps, have the secondary effect of making the banned editor think about their behavior, so that when the ban is lifted they're more apt to edit productively and harmoniously, but that's not the primary purpose. We don't get to the point of discussing a ban until disruption has continued despite efforts to halt it short of banning. Recall, please, that WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. In any case, if it's improvement of the editor that's wanted, either Drmies' proposal below, or my suggestion of linking the lifting of the ban to mandatory mentoring heads in that direction - but the primary purpose of both is to stop the disruption inherent in the editor's behavior. BMK (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose. I don't find the argument for a topic ban convincing. He created one WP:POINTY category, but several others which look plausible to some people. If he does something obviously pointy again, he will probably be blocked. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose - Some of the launched topics are stupid, others like "Slaveholder" unquestionably encyclopedic and "Terrorist(s)" at least highly arguable and very likely encyclopedic. No evidence of ill intent towards WP; certainly nothing to merit a topic ban. Carrite (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Support. User seems intent on categorising WP to his own (mostly) bizarre rationales & needs to desist. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Support. The user's inability to pause and review the utility and application of a new category before creating it has become disruptive to the community due to the volume, if nothing else, and needs to be managed if they cannot do it for themselves. I had assumed good faith on the user's part until I read this [156]. Clearly CensoredScribe is aware of what they have been doing regarding edit summaries; using them to either mislead other users regarding the contents of their edits or as a platform to justify those edits instead of engaging in debate on the relevant talk page. They are now attempting to use the promise of ceasing their abuse of edit summaries as a bargaining chip to obtain a lesser sanction than a topic ban. This does not instill confidence that they are approaching these discussions in an open way. Bowdenford (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose topic ban, it affronts sensibility to ban a user who's never been blocked for disrupting the topic where the ban is being sought. I may have supported a short term, preventative block, but a ban is way over the top at this point; in my opinion.—John Cline (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Comment What are people's opinions about the creation of User:CensoredAssurity80 just this morning? TheStickMan[✆Talk] 15:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Support – This sudden mass-editing of categories and disruption through this mass-editing is becoming too excessive. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC) A different tack Community edit restriction has consensus and is enacted. CensoredScribe is limited to creating categories that have met with consensus, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion or another appropriate venue, be it a Project talk page or ____ (fill in the blank). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Preface: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion has been pointed at as a venue for discussion. Perhaps there's a better one, I don't know--certainly there's a better place than my talk page. Following some discussion on my talk page, "Administrators Noticeboard Incidents", and my questions about CensoredScribe's Category:Slave owners (where they, by the way, indicated they wish to continue their work), and considering that many editors here think that CS is of good faith and their contributions (possibly) valuable: CensoredScribe is limited to creating categories that have met with consensus, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion or another appropriate venue, be it a Project talk page or ____ (fill in the blank). In other words, prior approval is the name of the game, a restriction that will of necessity limit their work and thereby the disruption caused by creating all-too many categories (analogous with the injunctions we've placed on individual editors regarding mass-deletion nominations). That the mass creation is disruptive is agreed on by many editors, it seems to me, and limiting CensoredScribe in this way could forestall a topic ban, which many editors seem to agree is too draconian. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Drmies, I think Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories is the venue you are grasping for. Ironically, several categories that have been labeled "disruptive" here, would likely have been created there! And before labeling CensoredScribe's categorization prowess "utterly inept", you should have a gander at some of the category and redirect suggestions posted there. Yet, to my knowledge, a total of zero topic bans have been issued to date. Frankly it's not as disruptive as some have implied to create poor categories. There's a cadre of gnomes out there who exist to improve poor categorization; and poor categorization is better than none at all.—John Cline (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Support I'd prefer this although I've voted for the topic ban as well, hope that's not too contradictory. But we really can't have silly categories such as Category:Mythological abolitionists and almost insulting edit summaries such as "Super best friends :0". Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Support this as well. It's essentially the same as the topic ban; they can't create a category without people agreeing that it is valid first. The only difference is that this allows them to create the category themselves, and not have to get someone else to do it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Support That sounds quite fair. I'll stop abusing the edit summary as well. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Support - Like Dougweller, I support this option as well as another way of curbing this behavior, but my support is contingent on the findings of the SPI. If it is determined that CS is Levineps, then my support for this option, as well as my suggestion for a mentoring "out" made above, are withdrawn. If an admin or the SPI should determine that Tranquility of Soul is CensoredScribe socking, same deal, whether or not the puppermaster is Levineps. BMK (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Barring solid proof, the Lewineps accusation seems unreasonable - aside from being someone else in hot water over categories, I see no similarity in the edits I looked at. Lewineps was splitting and combining other people's categories, stepping on some toes in the process. CensoredScribe by contrast seems genuinely interested in creating a useful classification of prominent themes in mythology and fiction that can be used as a sort of thesaurus by authors and humanities researchers looking for inspiration. Wnt (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC) I am afraid that it needs to be noted that, in spite of Censorscibe supporting this proposal, the editor made no attempt to discuss C posted at CFD and five minutes later (before any response could be made) created this Category:Teleportation in fiction. I can find no prior approval for this cat and, as it is a day after the editor agreed to these restrictions it is getting harder to AGF. If C can't follow the restrictions that C agreed to then I would suggest that the topic ban proposal above may be the only thing that will correct this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 21:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC) I did not think this would be a contested category as there was already a page teleportation in fiction. I have brought the discussion up at categories for discussion. I did not think DC and Marvel comics wizards would be contested as the counterpart to witches. Nor did I think that fictional zoos would be questioned given it has a clear definition and alien zoos was an accepted category that I created. I will propose all categories at the categories for discussion page; not just the more outlandish ones. I also think fictional gladiators and bio terrorists should be categories that should include alien arena fighters. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC) As shown here Special:Contributions/CensoredScribe you posted at CFD and 5 minutes later you created the cat. There was no prior approval which is the restriction that you aupported. Per WP:OTHERSTUFF just because an article exists does not mean that a category should be created. More than one editor has pointed out that you continually ignore WP:OR and WP:SYNTH both in the creation of cats and in placing said cats in wikiP's article. I can only agree with Ryulong's assessment regarding your judgement. MarnetteD | Talk 22:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Support Many of the categories have been quite bad, but a couple have actually been useful. For instance, Category:Nanotechnology in fiction is a solid category, that could be easily populated without violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I therefore agree that pre-clearing categories is preferable to an outright topic ban. Monty845 23:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Clarification required - CensoredScribe, to assist with considering if the suggested course of action would be appropriate to the situation, based upon you comments above please clarify the following: 1. Are you saying that unless there is agreement to your creation of categories being limited only to those that meet with consensus (as opposed to a topic ban) you will continue to abuse edit summaries? 2. Would the type of categories which you would be asking users to spend their time considering in an attempt to build consensus include such things as "alien arena fighters" and similar? Bowdenford (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC) No, I've already complained about the Starwars prequels, other franchises have weak entries; however I only made particular note of Starwars. I would not abuse the comments section to say that instead of four next generation movies it should have been 2 Deep Space Nine and Voyager films because the story of TNG was finished after 7 seasons. Nor would I be mentioning Alien 3's many other scripts. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Further clarification required - Your response regarding edit summary abuse is disingenuous at best and does not answer the questions. 1. I am not asking for a particular example of how you might undertake not to abuse the edit summary for particular articles in a particular way (which would leave those articles in particular and all other articles open to continued edit summary abuse by you in countless other ways). The question is, are you prepared to stop edit summary abuse, period, without limitation and irrespective of the outcome of the proposal under discussion? 2. I am hard pressed to determine from your reply to point 2 any way in which you might consider applying some sort of test or value judgement process to the potential worth of new categories you think of, prior to deluging users with a multitude of consensus enquiries/requests. Given your current, prodigious output, it seems reasonable to ask if the community would be treated to any restraint on your part at all or if you would continue using the shotgun principle, in that if one in ten applications obtains consensus that's good enough for you no matter how much work it creates for others sorting the silver from the dross. 3. It seems reasonable to ask that if you wish users to give an opinion regarding the suitability of your potential new categories for inclusion on WP, then you should at least be prepared to provide them with a sensible, cogent rationale in each instance regarding why you think they would improve the project. As an example, then, would you say that this pro-argument of yours [157] would generally represent how you would approach this process? Bowdenford (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose. Because it's essentially the same thing as a topic ban. The only truly disruptive category he created is given as an example over and over. Given how the dramaz erupted over obvious ok stuff like the nanotech in fiction (see sub-section below), I think this proposal is likely to function simply as an excuse for some to hound and oppose him at every step, no matter how reasonable categories he may propose. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC) That's not exactly a show of good faith toward the community. There are plenty of editors here (including me) who approve of some of CS's categories. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC) New account? not related. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Tranquility of Soul (talk · contribs) appeared in my watchlist today, having created several new categories and adding them to several pages. Examples include Category:Fictional characters with photographic reflexes, Category:Fictional gladiators, and Category:Fictional bio-terrorists.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC) That does seem suspicious. There's some overlap in the category interests, and both accounts occasionally forget to pluralize (cf. Category:Slave owner and Category:Fictional botanist). From recent messages on CensoredScribe's talk page we can see that they're aware that sockpuppetry is prohibited, so if Tranquility of Soul is theirs then they can't plead good-faith ignorance. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC) An SPI report is here. More evidence would be useful. BMK (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC) I am not tranquility of soul, though I can understand why you might think that. We have similarly unique names, forget to add an s, and create unique categories for fictional characters like fictional gladiators and fictional bio terrorists. If it had been me though after botanist would have come other academic disciplines, such as Category:Fictional translator for Uhura, Hoshi Sato, C3PO and HK-47 for example. However I don't believe tranquility of soul has made any edits to science or mythology have they; I didn't even edit fiction until recently. Also the first botanist I would have added would have been Poison Ivy (comics), like how she was one of the first people I added as an eco-terrorist. I would have listed wonder Superman, Mongul, Red Sonja, Wonder Woman, Mojo (comics), Samurai Jack, and Beta Ray Bill as gladiators as well because of war world and bills appearance in planet hulk. I also would have tried to get Darth Vader Obi-Wan, and Padme listed as gladiators because of the arena scene in episode II is clearly only in there because of Ridley Scotts Gladiator like Mr. Plinket says. Also I would have said in the inappropriate edit summary that Coroscaunt was L.A. from Blade Runner without Harrison Ford or interesting architecture. At that point I would have complained in the edit summary and suggested in a reboot Anakin was just a Luke aged gladiator when they first meet him; because a chariot race with pod racers would have made more sense than pod racing or an arena on there own. Probably add Ashoka as a slave Anakin meets, set the scene on Tattooine to make it look similar but not too much like Jabbas palace; and to quickly get that plot moving within the span of three films that have to work on their own and not as parasites. In addition I would have added a sub category to fictional gladiators for Soul Calibur characters who are all gladiators in the story mode. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC) This doesn't actually help your case such that you shouldn't make categories like these.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Please remember that we categorise things by what they are defined by, not by what they were in one episode or issue. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC) CensoredScribe hasn't stopped stopped now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I just saw that he made Category:Teleportation in fiction and Category:Nanotechnology in fiction and he had populating several dozen pages in it that I'm currently in the process of removing. He has clearly not gotten the message from this discussion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC) I posted on the categories for discussion page about this. I went through a list on this page Teleportation in fiction, this is a very common theme. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC) You are under discussion here and you continue to create categories that fall under this discussion. You have been told to stop but you continue. Do you not see a problem here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC) It seemed to me most people thought I was doing an alright job. I didn't think teleportation and zoos would be contested as I didn't make up any new extra vague words like soul absorbing terrorist synthetic biological gangster multidimensional. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC) This whole thread concerns the fact that your judgement on these matters cannot be trusted. Not only that, but your judgement when it comes to pre-existing categories is questionable. You've added characters to categories based on single instances in their long history of being labeled something. Superman's a slave because of something that happens in a short storyline. You make a bunch of characters labeled "Fictional war veterans" because they are fictional characters involved in fictional wars. Frankly, all this is showing is that you should be banned from anything to do with categories whatsoever.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)I see a problem -- Ryulong is being way too aggressive to an editor trying to contribute in a manner that is, at worst, harmless. Teleportation in fiction .. Star Trek, of course. One of the attractive young witches in Charmed -- probably some comic book characters? And that's just off the top of my head. Since we've had Category:Dungeons & Dragons character classes since 2006 (I know, i know, other stuff exists...) it's hard to see the real problem. NE Ent 22:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Ryulong, please stop tagging CensoredScribe's categories for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#C1. As has already been explained in this thread, that criterion does not apply since the categories have not been empty for four days. Nor is there any precedent for depopulating or deleting categories simply because the creator has violated some self-imposed topic ban. Your actions are coming across as very vindictive. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC) How are they vindictive? He's being told to stop multiple times and he's not stopping. And you were the only one to bring up the CSD issue. No one else seems to note that. And two of the categories I tagged were never populated to start with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Actually, tagging a category that was JUST emptied with C1 is perfectly acceptable. An inteesting quirk of the C1 tag is that, even if you place it on a category that was just emptied, it won't actually appear in the "tagged for speedy deletion" log until four days have passed - it's a note that "this category is empty, delete in four days if it still is". - The Bushranger One ping only 02:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Honestly a lot of the editors involved in this come across as wikitalibans to me. Yes, offensive general insult on ANI, but I feel it's justified in this case. Category:Nanotechnology in fiction appears justified because there is real stuff in Category:Nanotechnology. Category:Teleportation doesn't exist (thankfully) but surely there are plenty of fictional representations and I can think of some Star Trek episodes where the entire plot relied on some teleporter accident. I thought it made no sense to have two categories for stuff like Category:Shapeshifting and Category:Shapeshifting in fiction (both created by editors not involved in this latest drama) but even in that case the consensus was against me. This kind of discussion belongs at CfD. I see a lot of needless personalization in who did what that goes in circles. A bunch of people really need to drop their WP:STICKs. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC) On top of the fact that CensoredScribe makes up categories for really trivial and niche things, he also populates existing categories with articles based on his own interpretation of the source material or his knowledge of instances of things in single episodes that do not define the article as a whole. Superman is a fictional slave because for a short storyline he was enslaved. Fry from Futurama is a fictional war veteran because he enlisted in the army for one episode. None of this makes sense and is why we need to reign his actions in.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC) You have a valid point for Superman not being considered a slave. However the fictional veterns are correct, as are the categories for nanotechnology and teleportation. You just keep reverting them; I am going to ask you be blocked; as has been suggested to me. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC) That was a sockpuppet and therefore the post should not have been made.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC) User:CensoredAssurity80 Bad Wiki-star (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), no inserting yourself into other people's disputes. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. This is bizarre, this person claims to be me an alternate account for me. I noticed this on User talk:X96lee15 where Ryulong has posted several times. The account is one day old; I'm guessing this is Ryulong. How exactly did CensoredAssurity80 make an alternate account in my name? Wouldn't they need access to my account to do that? Is this tied to when I wasn't blocked for a week but was unable to logon or post from my IP? CensoredScribe (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC) This is related to this other thread. He did not "make an alternate account in your name". He impersonated you and just added {{alternate account}} to his user page. And I would not impersonate you or anyone. I have no use in reverting one of my own edits.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Ryulong is edit warring with CensoredScribe Mutual combat. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I would appreciate it if the valid categories I add to are not reverted by Ryulong. May this user be given some kind of sanction or simply asked to stop? I don't particularly mind a free 100 edits to my edit count for edit warring however. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Would you stop making new threads when this is related to the last one? You made a bold edit adding a bunch of categories to pages where frankly they do not belong. I reverted you once. Then you began the edit war by reverting me back. Sonic the Hedgehog does not contain cyborgs. Superman and the Martian Manhunter are not "fictional slaves". If you believe that the categories (that you did not recently create) that you added to these pages are valid despite the fact you were reverted, begin a discussion on that article's talk page regarding the use of that category on the article instead of insisting that you are correct in your judgement when this entire thread has a dozen people who believe your judgement regarding categories is not up to par.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC) If I look at both of your contributions, it's clear that you two are spending today reverting each other on dozens of edits which could result in a block for either one of you or both. I urge you both not to stalk each other's edits and focus on the discussion here and making other positive contributions, not policing each other's behavior. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC) CensoredScribe is being investigated here for his improper creation and implimentation of categories that violate WP:SYN. I reverted him twice over a two day period because he reverted my initial revert.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC) I will stop the endless cycle of reverting Ryulong reversions; however Ryulong has started to remove more of my categories such as mythological rape victims. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC) None of those pages had the word "rape" on it and those that did were using the archaic form of the word for kidnapping.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Ryulong is still reverting everything I add. What happens now? CensoredScribe (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC) You get blocked because you continue to create categories despite most of the project believing you shouldn't be making them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Ryulong has broken the 1RR they are on No 1RR sanction identified. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I would like to not have my valid edits reverted. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Care to provide difs for the 1RR in place, and the instances he broke it? Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC) I am not under 1RR restrictions. CensoredScribe, you have been lied to by a sockpuppet of the user discussed in this other thread. Stop making new threads when they are related to the one about you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Break Broken. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Seven subsections? This is really becoming ridiculous. And yet no one has moved a single inch since this discussion started... Epicgenius (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Three of these subsections are because CensoredScribe decided to make entirely new threads related to this issue rather than commenting within this thread and I moved them here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC) I thought this thread was only for discussing whether I should be blocked; or should have article category creation restrictions, not for discussing whether you should be blocked or have some kind of sanction. Yes seven is too many, this could have been 5 subsections, which is still a ridiculous number just not quite as ridiculous as 7. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Why did you feel the need to constantly make new threads on what was essentially nothing? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Can someone please do something about Ryulong? I think teleportation in fiction, nano technology in fiction fictional giantesses and giantesses in fiction are all valid categories. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC) No. Something needs to be done about you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC) This needs to end now Ended! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. As I was waiting for my block to expire, I discovered that CensoredScribe had created both Category:Giantesses in fiction and Category:Fictional giantesses because he added these to Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and Super Sentai, which are both on my watch list. I found that he made this post on Talk:Giantess then 10 minutes later, without any response, made the two aforementioned categories and began populating them. On this very page he agreed to a means of asking if a category is good and then making it but he clearly does not understand that what he is doing is disruptive and needs to stop. Throughout this whole discussion, it has frankly become clear that CensoredScribe does not have the competence to edit the English Wikipedia. He needs to be blocked before he proceeds in creating more categories that he applies to several pages without discussing them beforehand, particularly when they, as usual, do not define the whole article but just some aspect of the article, as he has been told multiple times that is what categories are supposed to be used for. And tl;dr, indefinitely block CensoredScribe because of WP:CIR.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC) As a side note, he did the same with Category:High schools in comic books, except he created the category first, and then posted on a talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC) The recent examples seem like WP:OC#TRIVIAL to me with intersecting any general topic with "in fiction" -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC) And as another note, he is now violating WP:POINT and WP:FORUMSHOPPING in order to validate his "Giantess" versions of Category:Fictional giants and Category:Giants in fiction. This has gone on for far too long. He needs to be blocked until he agrees that he will not make categories or add categories to pages without discussing either action first.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Also, as I point out below, he is continually trying to shift blame onto me and is trying to make new threads about this. This is going on for far too long and my patience has worn thin.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Proposal to block Ryulong for editing other users talk pages destructively and reverting categories for discussion Those two things alone regardless of his edit warring with me should mandate a block. I would like to be able to add obviously appropriate categories again. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Stop this, CensoredScribe. Stop trying to shift blame. Stop making new threads related to the one about you. Stop making these threads in the completely wrong parts of the page. This really just shows that you lack the competence to work here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Your arguement that an idea being shown in one of three episodes of a series does not constitute that series being about that subject is a broken argument Ryulong. No show is 100% about a subject, a third is a pretty reasonable number. Whether one of thirteen episodes counts is another matter; however jungle de ikkou is clearly about a giantess; the same way Boccaccio '70 has a giantess and is less than two hours long. Also, my behavior does not excuse yours which is clearly malevolent towards other users user talk pages. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Simply being featured in one episode or one side story does not justify categorization. And I see nothing regarding a giantess on either Jungle de Ikou! or Boccaccio '70. If it's not mentioned on the article to begin with, then there's no point in adding a category for it. And my actions towards X96lee15 are currently under discussion. The fact I'm editing now means that there's no further threat from me doing whatever it is I was blocked for in the first place. My block does not invalidate my arguments. You have been told for 2 months now that your category creation is bad. And yet you do nothing to fix it. I've agreed not to edit X96lee15's talk page to remove a banned user's comments, again. You need to agree not to create more categories because the more you create the more disruption you cause.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC) There was certainly no reason for you to remove an article's defining category for one of your mismatched categories.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Ryolong is a user who delights in being verbally abusive against other editors. He should be banned permnanently., as per the following little "discussion" he engaged in some time ago: Message 1: Message 1 Answer 1Arildnordby (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC) I did not direct that message to you in any way shape or form and it's from a year ago. That is regarding this communication with Boneyard90. I haven't even heard of you before.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC) I depopulate the categories I create which are too limited. When a series is less than 13 episodes a single episode about a subject should be used for categorizations. I dream of Jeannie also features size change because she lives in a tiny bottle; which is shown to be her tiny apartment. She uses size changing every single episode. I suggest mythological giantesses also be a category to include Lilith as Karina. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC) You removed the I Dream of Jeanie category from the I Dream of Jeanie page. Do you not see a problem with that? And you really need to read Wikipedia:Categorization because everything you are saying goes against it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Wow, Ryulong has reverted Category:Giants three times now, they really don't want the name to be discussed. 3 times is clearly some kind of violation. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC) You are adding a malformed CFD tag to the page without ever setting up a valid CFD discussion on the topic. And this is all because of the actions taken here. This is you disrupting Wikipedia to make a point or trying to game me into violating a rule.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Break 2 Despite all of this discussion, CensoredScribe persists in adding categories to pages where the category does not define the work as a whole. And he has begun to edit war over them after I remove them because he is fully aware that his ability to add these is under question. This has gone on for far too long. He needs to be blocked before he continues to cause problems.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Goku is more a monkey than he is un-dead, but he counts as both. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Stop changing the subject.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC) I propose we lock both editors in an orphaned category. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC) So long as it's not "Mythological rapists".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC) CensoredScribe is insisting that Lilith be included in Category:Giantesses (deleted 7 years ago) because the figure Karina from Islamic lore was described as a giantess. I have objected to this in reverts and on the talk page but he obviously refuses to listen to me. This is going on for far too long. It is very clear that CensoredScribe does not understand WP:Categorization, and refuses to listen to anyone, and will try to disrupt to make a point and game the system to get his way. He clearly lacks the competence required to contribute to this project in a way that is constructive and accepted by the community and should be blocked until he understands the problems he is causing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC) From what I've seen a) CensoredScribe doesn't have a good sense for WP:Categorization guidelines and what purposes they serve (to organize, not describe) and b) he/she ignores other people trying to educate them on category creation. They act as if there is a severe deficit of categories that need creating that has to happen immediately when categories are just a level of organization that gets continually refined over time. There is no urgency for a Category:Giantesses and if its creation is challenged, they should take the time to discuss it with other editors rather than insist he/she knows best. Don't get me wrong, I spend a lot of time working with categories and category organization. But only a tiny fraction of my category edits involve creating brand new categories that didn't exist before. It is quite an effort to delete or merge bad categories through CfD so it is better to be cautious about creating new ones that don't have some grounding in the existing category structure. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC) I've just given both of them 3RR warnings for their edit warring. I'm tempted to block both of them for pure edit warring at this point. I've certainly had my issues with CensoredScribe's edits, I've reverted many of them myself and believe there are issues there, but this edit warring is getting out of hand. Since I've waded in again, I'll say my piece. Some of CensoredScribe's categories are good, some are bad. I have more of an issue with the categorization that the creation of the categories to be honest, a lot of the categorizations are just pure bad. Apparently Luke Skywalker was a fictional yogi, and because Batman has psychological profiles of people he's a psychiatrist. Canterbury Tail talk 03:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC) I thought category:fictional giantesses similar to category:fictional sword fighters; a way of making the categories more gender neutral. I thought this common policy; just as I tried to recomend DC and Marvel Wizards rather than delete the category for witches. I assume wikipedia is supposed to be worded as gender neutral as possible. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC) There are like 4 wizards between DC and Marvel so there's no point in having a category. And there's no point in having a gendered divide and particularly when a character is not always a giant. And stop adding your malformed tags to Category:Fictional giants and Category:Giants in fiction. There is no discussion on WP:CFD for them. You just copied something from another page and you're expecting that a discussion will happen.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hiding a BLP violation

Dealt with. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A single purpose account posted [this unsourced edit] that I would consider a BLP violation and should probably be hidden. I have reverted the edit. I don't know how to hide an edit and probably don't have the authority to do it anyhow. Trackinfo (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC) I revision deleted it, but in the future, please consider the advice at Wikipedia:Revdel#How_to_request_Revision_Deletion on why it is inadvisable to post such requests on a noticeboard. Monty845 02:35, 7 February 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.

Attacks on Kevin Gorman

The debacle above concerning Gorman and his 'gravedancing' allegations has already been closed with no action, so I won't re-hash that entire thread here. However, the discussion has certainly not ended in other areas and unfortunately it is beginning to get out of hand, as evidenced by this vindictive attack by Ihardlythinkso, who calls Kevin a Jerk and questions his competence (particularly his ability to read and write). A similarly unhelpful message from the other side of the spectrum was posted by an IP a few moments ago. I realize that there are a lot of raw emotions flying around, but the nasty attacks are not likely to improve the situation. I don't know that any action (ie. blocks, bans) is necessary yet, but the unhelpful discussion should be shut down. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 16:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• As usual Wikipedians are showing the foresight of goldfish. When an Admin makes not only a severe error of judgement, refuses to apologize and then launches a smear campaign on his attackee - all of which is seemingly condoned by his peers (why else has he not been desysopped) then all hell is bound to break loose. Why is anyone surprised?  Giano  16:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I don't agree with how Kevin handled the situation. Personally, I think we should have some form of community de-adminship for cases like this. However, I doubt that it will ever happen. (I'm not saying that Kevin should be desysopped, but I do think that decision should be in the community's hands.) Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 16:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• My comment here more or less sums up how I feel about this issue. The behavior of certain editors on Eric's talkpage, my talkpage, and various other places is stuff that would be sanctioned as NPA violations with no one blinking an eye if this situation didn't involve Eric. I can put up with the crap although I'd be more than happy if someone feels like blocking some of the ruder attacks on Eric's talkpage, but more significant than attacks themselves is how the response to my actions points to serious cultural problems with regard to talented contributors enjoying de facto immunity from WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. As a note regarding the original situation, arbcom already has a brief note from me, and will have a less brief one in the near future. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's a little late in the day for you to be crying for the protection that you deneid to others. A responsible admin thinks through the consequences of his actions before taking them.  Giano  16:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Kevin, while I agree with your concerns about those who enjoy de facto immunity from the policies cited above, I must note that there is possibly some resentment over the fact that admins are often essentially immune from serious consequences unless someone wants to jump through all the hoops of an ArbCom case. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 16:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If I made the personal attacks Eric has, I would be blocked, regardless of the fact that I'm an admin. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I doubt that it was really necessary for you to escalate the situation to that point. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 16:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom will have details in the near future (two arbs already do,) but it was. Not all blame lays on Eric and I handled it poorly, but that thread needed to die. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Kevin, you showed poor judgement in your initial action. Rather than working so hard to justify it, why not try to learn from your mistake? --John (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I admitted from literally the first articulation I put forth of why I acted that I made mistakes in how I conducted it. I thought it was necessary at the time, and emails I've received since then whose contents would literally be oversighted if I posted them here has made me even more convinced the action was necessary even though parts of the manner were inappropriate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your language is so tortured it's hard to figure out what you mean. "I made mistakes in how I conducted it"; good. "...[T]he action was necessary"; not so good. Keep thinking, I guess. --John (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Since this happened, five barnstars have appeared on Kevin's talk page and at least one of them (mine) was a direct gesture of support for his actions here. That indicates that there is a (IMHO sizable) portion of the community that are right behind Kevin on this.

IMHO, Eric's comments were remarkably choke-on-your-coffee offensive, even for Eric. The thought that anyone could be supporting them, or even thinking that this was an appropriate use of WP, is beyond me.

If Kevin's actions were in any way inappropriate (and nothing is leaping out at me), then their overall reasoning and direction was within an acceptable GF reaction to offensive behaviour in a sensitive situation. As such, even if hindsight suggests differences, there is no criticism to be made of an editor who acts in such a way, in such an obviously GF manner, in such a difficult situation – let alone whether it's Eric or any other editor beyond the rawest newbie.

As to Giano's comment today, I can only ask – how does one "smear" Eric? What possible negative spin do you put on his behaviour that's worse than the basic reality? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

How does attacking Eric help? Other than demonstrate that you think NPA is for others and not for you? --John (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally think both of them should have been blocked for a good long while. But turn that around, do other editors get free shots because someone who likely should have been blocked was not blocked? That's not how it works, last I checked. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. My ostensible personal attack is something I've already said I will not repeat, thus a block would be punitive, even if were a blockworthy comment. On the otherhand, I can pull up fifty diffs of Eric violently attacking people with no problem - which demonstrates a recurring pattern of behavior utterly justifying a long term block as a preventative measure. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok Kevin, I'll rise to that one. Please post 50 diffs of Eric "violently attacking" someone. (How does a "violent attack" work on the Internet exactly?) --John (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(EC) You've said that repeatedly - I look forward to reviewing those diffs. And you're right, blocks are preventative, not punitive. I've yet to see someone explain what would be prevented by a block here. Perhaps I overstated my point - whether you were or were not blocked doesn't justify some other editor taking pot shots at you. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Given Eric's track record, if we want to avoid him making personal attacks, one would think the only type of block that would be long term preventative is an indefinite one. KonveyorBelt 17:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Right now, nothing is to be prevented as Eric has indicated that he is leaving. Therefore, posting 50 diffs (or suggesting that you have 50 diffs) might fall into the category of 'generating more heat than light'. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 17:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Eric has repeatedly left and returned to resume his same behavioral pattern - there's an absolutely strong argument to be made that blocking him for a years long pattern of personal attacks and incivility is thus preventative. @Ultra: I agree with you that there's not a justification for multiple editors continuing to attack me in multiple places - which is why I view a potential block on any who continue to do so as preventative and thus potentially justifiable (whereas I used one word that people have alleged constituted a personal attack that was already closed without action, have already said it's not something I'll be doing again multiple times.) NA: I agree with you that posting a large collection of diffs at this point is not useful at this point in time. Anyone who wants to see them at the moment can look at my talk page. Or Eric's talk page. Or Eric's block log. Or Eric's contribution history. I'll save collating and posting a massive collection of diffs for an RFCU or arbcom case when Eric returns and continues his pattern of behavior. For now I'm logging off and taking a nap. One arb has a full description of why I took action and what after the fact communications make me fully believe the thread needed to die. Another arb has a tl;dr version. I'll chime in on this thread again when I wake up if it is still alive at that point.If this comment sounds grumpy... it's probably because I'm both tired and grumpy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The nap is a good idea, the first sensible thing you have said. I look forward to seeing you come back refreshed, retracting the false grave dancing claim you made and apologising, and retracting the false "50 diffs" claim and apologising for that too. --John (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There are other users behaving in the same manner. Personally, I think implying that someone is incompetent and unable to read and write is a little bit too far over the line. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 16:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I would think the same about implying that someone is celebrating another's death, but that's just me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 17:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

User:AirportExpert and copyrighted images

User:AirportExpert has repeatedly uploaded third party images of airliners copied from websites, without any indication that such use is permissible, and indeed sometimes in the face of clear language claiming copyright. See File:Barq Aviation L-1011.jpg and File:Air Trust il62m.jpg for two current examples, if they have not been deleted; the latter is a repeat. I don't claim any great expertise in image copyright, fair use or non-free use matters, but a pretty serviceable rule of thumb for me has always been, "pictures taken by other people that you find on the internet are presumptively copyrighted and aren't fair game for uploads" (absent an appropriate license or fair use rationale). I've had a couple of exchanges with AE about his liberal re-use of third party images, see my Talk page, but he has continued to upload them. I raise the issue here because either 1) my understanding of these issues is incorrect and I'm overreacting or 2) AE is a repeat infringer and warrants a stronger warning than I seem to be able to supply. (NB: AirportExpert previously contributed under the name of Msloewengart, where additional copyright / licensing issues appear.) JohnInDC (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Their edit summaries (and edits) at Lockheed L-1011 TriStar also show a complete lack of understanding of how Wikipedia's attribution policies work. (For instance "There is no need to cite information that is received from other Wikipedia articles".) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I do a fair amount of copyright work and your rule is a good working rule. The parenthetical comment is important - I occasionally run across people over-reacting and missing that a site had a CC license for the text, or a Flickr image had an appropriate license, so I just want to emphasize (if others are ready it) that the parenthetical comment is important.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, crap. We had a long-term abuser from years ago who did this as a serial pattern, uploading dozens and dozens of aircraft images they scraped with false credits, across six or seven accounts I found. I can't recall the name... Moonriddengirl, is this ringing a bell? (poke) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Verybluesky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was one of them. I'm looking for the rest. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Aha. ANigg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ANigg/Archive, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ANigg, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ANigg. Account created in 2007 and commenced copyvios in 2008. Seven known socks, plus Verybluesky matched the pattern but the SPI data was too stale by then. Verybluesky was created just a few months after the block of Skyfox265, the last SPI confirmed sock, and duck test passed a match. Reviewing ANigg sock edit patterns, AirportExpert pops like a flashbulb... But is four years since Verybluesky was zapped, having been created in January 2014 ( Special:Log/AirportExpert ). Crap. Assuming it's him again, and not a false positive match, where has he been for the intervening four years, and what myriad damage has he left us from those four years? .... Aaarrrrgggghhhhh.... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Msloewengart, now AirportExpert, was created in December 2013. It should be noted that AirportExpert seems to have no understanding of WP:V/WP:N/WP:RS, if that helps one way or the other. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

ANigg didn't either. I'm going to mail functionaries and ask to what extent SPI results from 2010 may still be accessable to see if there's any match that could be made, or if anyone remembers info that far back. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

AE was himself a sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Msloewengart/Archive. That being said, while I don't know a ton about image copyright rules, I do have a decent nose for socks and to me, AE and his predecessor edit with a different tone than the ANigg. Plus, while the subject matter is a bit arcane, it wouldn't altogether surprise me that Wikipedia might draw in more than one clueless / determined airplane anorak. Still a CU might be helpful, if possible - JohnInDC (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Verybluesky seems more like AE - not very communicative, lots of edits and tweaks to articles about charter operations. JohnInDC (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, did you get a response? Is this being pursued further? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Response was that records are not usefully kept past three months, so we are out of SPI luck. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• {{Checkuser needed}} to evaluate this thread. There is a prima facie case and a sock/sleeper check seems very well warranted.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Bump to prevent archiving. MER-C 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• At this point in time, I don't see how a checkuser can help you. All but one of the accounts listed in this thread is stale, and beyond that there is no evidence of socking presented in this thread, just comments, concerns, and ideas. If you do have further info and/or evidence, I'd recommend you take it up at SPI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Unsolved severe personal attack on Romanian Wikipedia

Please consider approaching the WMF over any long-term grievances at ro.wiki. The English Wikipedia is neither affected nor do we have any authority at the Romanian Wikipedia project. De728631 (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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, there is a problem that Romanian Wikipedia proved incapable to solve in almost two years (one year and 10 months, to be exact). In march 2012, ro:User:Turbojet threatens ro:User:AdiJapan to tell to AdiJapan's boss that AdiJapan edits Wikipedia while at work. Putting that threat into effect means AdiJapan will have serious problems at work. As a result, AdiJapan doesn't edit Wikipedia in the weekdays, he only edits in the weekends. No more edits while at work.

According to Wikipedia:No personal attacks: Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery.

Turbojet was blocked indefinitely but after a few days was unblocked in order to give him a chance to defend himself. However he refused to explicitly retract his threat. The subject was opened again in january and february 2014. What we got from Turbojet was that he accepted that the threat was a reaction based on his state of mind at that moment, when he was very angry. However, that leaves space for something like "It was a momentarily reaction but if I get angry again, I can put it into practice".

All we need is for Turbojet to completely, clearly, explicitly and unequivocally retract his threat and to promise he will never put it into effect. It takes him maximum 10 or 20 words. Apologies to Wikipedia (not to AdiJapan) would be welcomed but not necessary. He doesn't want to do that, so the only reasonable option (in my view) is to block him indefinitely. After that, if he decides so, he can appeal the block, retract his threat and get unblocked.

The problem is that the community at the Romanian Wikipedia is not firm enough to face him these two alternatives: retract or be blocked. Therefore I have to appeal here.

The biggest problem (for RO.WP) is not AdiJapan's situation - if he wants to do it, Turbojet can put his threat into effect whenever he decides so, and Wikipedia can do nothing to stop that. We can't do anything for AdiJapan to feel safe editing Wikipedia while at work. The biggest problem is that such actions make editors feel unsafe participating at Romanian Wikipedia. They can feel it like entering in a bad neighborhood, without police, where you can get into big trouble any time, without chances to escape. Wikipedia should prove that such threats are and will be absolutely intolerable and those who create them are not welcomed on the project.

Here you have the log of the events:

• the threat: 30 march 2012
• AdiJapan appeals the community to solve the problem: Turbojet gets blocked and unblocked after 6 days - may 2012
• Turbojet was asked to retract his threat - january 2014 - backup link
• I asked the Romanian Wikipedia to face Turbojet the two options - 6 feburary 2014. No result.

Thank you. —  Ark25  (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• The English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction nor influence on the Romanian Wikipedia ES&L 12:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, that sounds pretty awful - but there's nothing we can do here. Best option on en.wiki might be to ping Jimbo, but I don't know that you'll have any better results. Good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Turbojet and AdiJapan (both of whom should have been notified of this thread, btw) are both active on en-wiki (although they haven't interacted much here). I was going to archive this with no action, but I'm wondering whether a threat like that on another wiki could in fact be actionable here, insofar as it involves a personal attack by one en-wiki contributor against another. IIRC, we have in the past taken administrative action for off-wiki harassment at a certain un-nameable Wiki-criticism site. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Where should I report the problem, then? Directly to Jimmy Wales? Isn't there a central place to report problems about any Wikipedia? Imagine, for example on "Romulan Wikipedia", people send death threats, post fascist propaganda, etc and the community there doesn't react, what happens? The managers of the whole Wikipedia website (www.wikipedia.org) must react, either by blocking the corresponding users, or closing the "Romulan Wikipedia" - that's how I imagine things should work. Isn't there a managing team for Wikipedia? Do I have to report directly to the owner (JW)? Thanks. —  Ark25  (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Jimbo is definitely one solution, but speaking to the WMF directly may also be a good idea. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you point on a specific page on WMF for that? Because I can't find one. Thanks. —  Ark25  (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

When you open the ANI edit window a big pink window appears above it with some contact details. I'm not entirely sure this one is appropriate but [email protected] maybe the one you want. if not, they should be able to direct you to the correct one. Blackmane (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

How about simply forgetting about this "threat" that allegedly happened in some other wiki nearly two years ago? Why is any retractarea formală needed? Since when it has been persecution (term used in our WP:NPA, which itself might not be interpreted exactly identically in Ro Wp than here BTW) to take action for cause against employees who surf in the 'net when they should be working? This is just silly and unnecessary drama. I didn't bother to machine translate the linked pages but it seems that User:Ark25 has been keeping this very old matter still current and the discussion there appears to be on Godwin's Law tangent with Wikipedia editors compared to Galileo before the Holy See. I can understand the meaning of la activitatea lui de *** profesionist in [158] but I did not quite catch who this comment is referring to. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 16:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The comment is referring to Ark25, which is accused of digging up this issue in order to move the attention of the community away from its link-adding activities, which are frowned upon by some users. I have no real reason to believe the accusations are true, though.--Strainu (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been notified about this discussion. I don't really have much to add, Ark25 has pretty much said everything that was to be said. In the interest of the Romanian Wikipedia I believe the community there had better deal with Turbojet decisively, otherwise this will create the precedent for a anyone being able to threat anyone with little or no consequences.

His threat affects me on en.wp as well. Because of the threat, for the last two years I've had to drastically reduce my contribution here, just as I have on ro.wp and all other Wikimedia projects I had had some activity on (Commons, ja.wp, fr.wp).

However, I am fully aware that blocking Turbojet (anywhere or everywhere) wouldn't help me at all, as he can still carry out his threat as soon as I restart editing form work. So whatever you do, it won't matter to me personally, but only to the user communities. — AdiJapan 16:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think such threats create an unwelcome chilling effect (akin to WP:LEGAL) but they don't seem to be a violation of the section you quoted. Perhaps it will help if you emphasise the key bits more: "political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others". That section is clearly intended to deal with stuff like someone telling an employer about their employee's sexuality or religion or the political party they support or whatever when that may expose the employee to discrimination or worse. You could perhaps include if the employer is likely to discriminate against that person if they edit wikipedia (whatever they edit) even outside work but that's about the limit. There is no way that getting in trouble for editing wikipedia at work when your employer doesn't welcome it (I presume we're even talking about when the employee is supposed to be working not during their break) can be considered equivalent to such persecution. In fact I would go so far as to say it's offensive to suggest it is equivalent.

Edit: Just noticed jni said the same thing. I should add I'm not saying people should be editing wikipedia when they're being paid by an employer to work. It simply that I don't think people should use such threats to get their way presuming that's what happened here. I would note if this wasn't the intention but instead Turbojet was concerned about AdiJapan editing from work for some other reason, e.g. AdiJapan is a government employee for a government which affects Turbojet, or TurboJet owns shares or works for the same company, or even if TurboJet simply morally disagrees with AdiJapan editing while they are being paid to work; then I don't think it's any of our business. Of course in such a case Turbojet shouldn't be 'threatening' AdiJapan but 'warning' them. (It gets more complicated if the editing is happening at work but during a break rather than when the employee is being paid to work.)

Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There are many many people in this world who have a job where they only have to attend people (clients or not) when necessary. Other than that, they have nothing to do. For example, I heard in South Korea people never retire. Instead, when they get older, they get jobs like guarding an apartment building - every apartment building has a lobby with something similar with a hotel's reception. They open a door when they have to (pushing a button) and things like that. Most of the time at work, all they have to do is to be there. Therefore they can edit Wikipedia in the time for which they are paid to do their job. There are many other jobs like that and I suspect many Wikipedia editors are have such jobs and are already editing Wikipedia while at work. AdiJapan said that editing Wikipedia while at work doesn't affect his productivity at work and we have to assume he said that in good faith. It's an offense to dictate to someone to waste their free time at work by looking at walls or something like that, suggesting that using that free time to edit Wikipedia is cheating their boss.

What Turbojet did was blackmail. The words you highlighted included other persecution, which can include, helping a boss who try to find any excuse to hares his employees. This issue is not about Turbojet or AdiJapan, but it's all about Wikipedia editors who should feel safe and should know that severe attacks are handled properly when they occur. The issue evaded me for a long time and it came into my attention just recently by pure chance, and I think it should resolved at least now. —  Ark25  (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It may be black mail. It's not persecution and suggesting it is offensive. Now I understand English may not be your first language, but it's as clear as daylight to me that the section you're quoting was not intended to cover what you're referring to. I don't know what problems exist on the Romanian wikipedia, but if people insist things are persecution when they clearly aren't and don't recognise the wide gulf between genuine persecution and reporting someone for editing wikipedia when they're supposed to be working then it's no wonder problems exist there.

So I stick with my main point. If someone is being paid to work and is editing wikipedia while they're supposed to be working, then if someone has a moral opposition to that and wants to report it to their employer it's not a matter for us to get involved in it. You can believe what you want, as can anyone else. The fact of the matter is, if someone is getting paid to work and is doing something else instead, it's not unresonable someone may have moral opposition to such practices and may wish to end it. (Note that I already mentioned in my first reply it gets complicated when the person is on a break or is otherwise not necessarily supposed to be working.) That's a matter between the employer, employee and third party, not something we should involve ourselves in. And it's not unresonable the third part may warn (not threaten) the employee before they make any reports. And it's offensive to suggest that people aren't allowed to hold what is a perfectly resonably opinion on such practices and take action accordingly, whatever your personal opinion of such practices. This is very different from trying to expose someone to persecution due to their private life.

Now if the person is blackmailing or threatening the person over it, that's a different matter but because people should not use such threats to get their way, not because we are encouraging people to edit wikipedia while they're supposed to be working. As I said, we already effectively forbid that per WP:LEGALTHREAT which is generally expanded to cover cases where someone uses the chilling effect of any threat to discourage participation or otherwise get their way. There's no need to try to make it in to persecution when it clearly isn't.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone, I can't be bothered working out who messed around with my indentation which was and is supposed to be at level 1 as I am replying to the original post not to any of the follow ups in particular. Please don't mess around with my indentation again. Edit: Found it was Ark25 and have asked them not to do it again. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if the battle lines were drawn here years earlier: [159]. It is also natural reaction to go forum shopping off-wiki against someone who said pentru in ones desysopping: [160]. My *** detector might not be correctly calibrated to Romanian frequencies, but this dispute seems to be a continuation of who knows what grievances accumulated over the years. I think this can be closed here, as it is not our duty to start meddling into someone else's wheel warring until it really spills into English Wikipedia. User:Ark25 has raised this in Meta as well (and likely elsewhere): [161] jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 18:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

When I was blocked by Turbojet, I well deserved it (I called a group of editors "fascists", one of them threatened to sue Wikipedia, Turbojet reacted in panic and he blocked me quickly). My relation with him was very good for long after that incident, he helped me many times in finding information and I still have a good opinion about him. He and many others can confirm that. Also, recently my administration rights were removed (Turbojet voted "against" me) because I didn't move a finger to do an administrator's job. The community asked me to become administrator, hoping that I will do administration work, but they failed miserably :P. If administration rights would have meant anything for me, I would have move my behind to at least make it look like I'm interested in it. I know I can become administrator tomorrow if I declare that I want to do an administrator's job. I have no grievances whatsoever about anyone on Wikipedia, in fact, one user there declared that he is my perfect enemy, he is poking me whenever he finds an opportunity, calling me ***, vandal, etc and I keep telling him that I find him entertaining. I have nothing against Turbojet, I only think he should be forced to fully retract his threat (or blocked if he refuses) because we need him in the community.

So, your *** detection programs might be good, but I'm just not the regular Joe that is looking for "power" and gets into gangs and rivalries. I raised the issue at the village pump and then I was pointed to meta. The issue there is about having a central noticeboard in general, not only about this complaint. The users of smaller and not well organized Wikipedias should feel embraced. The warmth, coherence, stability and safety a user finds on English Wikipedia (characteristic for English-speaking communities in general, not only Wikipedia) should be better spilled on the smaller Wikipedias, by making the users feel they can appeal to someone who really understands how things work, in case they need. —  Ark25  (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Definitely it is a problem of Romanian Wikipedia. I agree that the question be examined by WMF Board. --Turbojet (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible spam

User:WG2012 is going to numerous articles about American military installations adding links to local directory sites. Not sure whether this should be reported at admin intervention against vandalism or here, but I've noticed how accounts like this tend to be blocked quickly, sometimes without warning. He seems to be doing it in good faith but still these links aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Survivorfan1995 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 February 2014‎

First since you mentioned them here you need to notify them that you did. Next before bringing it here you should try to discuss this with them and explain why the links are not appropriate. How are they supposed to modify their actions if they do not know there is a problem? GB fan 21:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You stated, "accounts like this tend to be blocked quickly, sometimes without warning". Not usually against good faith editors, or at least administrators try to avoid that, because that is tantamount to driving away newcomers. I agree that the best course of action is to approach the editor first. -- Atama頭 17:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User Daicaregos - wikilawyering over basic editing rules

Can an admin here please inform User:Daicaregos of the rules on Wikipedia regarding repeatedly editing someone's discussion-page comments against their wishes. I have contacted him, but am now obliged to spend x mins of my life in here (Oh how I love Wikipedia, and pages are loading really slowly for me today as well). It's not the biggest thing ever - and I'm half tempted to leave it - but I do think he needs to be told what the rules actually are here, and he's not listening to anyone else: far from it. I'll try and make it as simple as I can to adjudicate, which means a bit more text than a short list of links...

I created a new section on the discussion page of Welsh people HERE (1), and then realised that someone else had already created a section on exactly the same subject directly above mine, probably while I was actually writing mine (I did have to leave my laptop at one point, as I often do). On noticing the duplicate section about 40 mins later (nobody had commented in between) I simply removed my own heading and merged the two, leaving an explanatory 'edit-note' HERE (2) and a little note in brackets on the discussion page too.

This is important here: all the points I addressed in my merged-section's comment exactly related to the heading-title of the section above: they both were about the problematic word "ethnicity". I then extended my comment to address other factors that relate to 'ethnicity' - Bertrand Russell's own preferred identity and the Welsh language in particular - simply because they were part a large edit that I had attempted, all parts of which fully-relate to the "ethnicity" term/issue in the section's introduction. Daicaregos seems to be suggesting that by covering so much I am somehow not playing by the section-merging rules. It does all fully relate though, and I've never heard of such rules anyway. I think this could be an area he doesn't fully understand, but I don't know.

Basically I thought I did something pretty simple, and fully 'by the book' too.

So two hours later (and without asking me first), Daicaregos reinstated my heading HERE (3), with his own note next to it. I wasn't best pleased, so I reverted his change and told him on his talk page HERE (4) that that is against the rules. I asked him not to do it again and told him why. I basically said he had to contact me about things like that, not take it upon himself to do it. I thought that would be the end of it.

Without contacting me at all, Dai then decided to the same thing again, but as a subheading this time HERE (5). Dai was then strongly addressed by User:Ghmyrtle on his talk page HERE (6) - presumably the whole discussion, similar link to 4. For some reason though, Dai is holding his ground on this, as can be seen if you read it. He's 'wikilawyering' to the nth degree, which I actually think is nothing but a waste of people's time. He is also claiming that he is being wronged somehow in all this, by both myself and ghmyrtle (you'll have to read it). Personally I have no interest in arguing with him about it, so I've started this ANI hoping it will be the less of the two time-draining evils. I certainly don't want to get into an 'edit war', so I've left the discussion page as it stands.

--

I will add that on reflection I did feel my section title (Creepy "people, ethnic group and nation" introduction) was probably one that Wikipedia can do without. I've always thought headings should be more formal than the text within need be, and it is highly likely I would have changed the wording of the heading anyway: probably changing the first word "Creepy" to "Misleading" or "Inappropriate overkill in" - though I do genuinely feel encreeped about the matter at hand I'm afraid. Welsh people expressed as a country-wide group cannot be an 'ethnic group' by any logical definition of this seemingly newly-expressed term. There is just too much variation, even amongst the most overtly 'Welsh'. And residents of Anglesey and Cardiff are very different culturally: two very different 'ethnic groups' if you must insist on using the term that way. My identity happens to be by-far the most popular in Wales: British Welsh - and I could also be from Honolulu too for all anyone here knows - and I feel that I and most other Welsh people have been estranged from Wikipedia's 'Welsh People' article. The intro has changed a little, but it's still not up to scratch: there is currently no mention of the United Kingdom at all, nor enough balance regarding the minority-spoken Welsh language (still currently called "its language"). I personally think a lot of blustering goes on to stop the words United Kingdom, Britain or British ever getting in. But anyway, I didn't actually need to adapt any of my heading text at all, only effectively 'merge' my new section into the one above.

If anyone else is a bit perplexed about Dai's behaviour here (ie why do this?), I think it could be possible that he wants to initiate an admin-involved discussion on the various merits of recent comments and edits made specifically by myself. I would argue that this isn't the correct way to go about that, or the best eventual place for it to happen either. For those who might be interested in pursuing that line, it can be noted that an alternative introduction to the article is actually being worked on, one that will hopefully be acceptable to enough attending people - it rarely gets better than that in these areas I'm afraid.

I think people may appreciate it if this ANI at least could be kept to the case in hand: ie to clearly affirm the editing rules for this regard, which is hopefully all that's needed. I am also happy to discuss my position regarding the UK, sovereignty, Britishness and anything related though - either one.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs)

PS. I'd like to add that I was unhappy to see the edit-note on me forgetting to sign - calling it a 'wall of text'. I did try to make it easier for someone here, and was prepared to wait a bit. Some people do write more than others - that's life I'm afraid: I don't think it's right to comment negatively on that, an that kind of thing can give the ANI-subject confidence too. I haven't been on Wikpidia for quite a while, am actually quite rusty - and that was no-doubt why I forgot to sign. Matt Lewis (talk)

Ok, clearly nothing's happening in here at least, so can someone just tell this guy he's wrong in here about the discussion-page comment-editing rules, so I can remove my unwanted heading again? I really don't want to 'edit war' over a stupid unwanted section heading: it just may be the thing that finally shrivels my mind. You can then presumably close this thing. There's three people now he hasn't listened to, including an admin. Somebody here could at least just tell him not to revert me again. I'm afraid I'm not going to 'back down' and strike the replaced heading like he wants me to, I think that gives entirely the wrong signal here. I just don't want to do it, and I can see myself tomorrow just reverting him again tbh. Or should I just revert it first and see what happens. I don't know. My head hurts. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright I've put it back.[162]. An admin has already had a word with him, but you might want to give it couple of days before closing. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Response from User:Daicaregos

Summary of complaint: Matt began a new thread at Talk:Welsh people. He subsequently decided to remove the section heading believing it relevant to the previous thread ("..an ethnic group and nation indigenous to Wales...", by User:Ghmyrtle. I wanted to respond to Ghmyrtle's post, rather than to Matt's post (of over 4000 bytes), so I reinstated Matt's original heading. Following discussion at my talkpage, I subsequently preserved Matt's original heading (“Creepy "people, ethnic group and nation" introduction”) as a subheading.

Defence: This complaint seems to be one of interpretation of Talk page guidelines. The Section headings guideline at WP:TPO, says “It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.”. None of Matt's posts have been deleted, nor have they been changed. Not by me, anyway. Note that that guideline also states that no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. (my emphasis).

Matt's post resulted in a rebuke on his talkpage from Ghmyrtle: “I'm tempted to remove your diatribe as, mostly, irrelevant to the article, and completely failing to respond to my point. I won't, but others might. I'm certainly not going to respond to it, though. Please try and keep to the point, rather than going off on a rant.”. I felt the same, which is why I wanted to keep his rant separate from a post that was likely to improve the article. Matt's response to Ghmyrtle included the claim that “… people here need to hear what I have to say about a few things”. Well, that should include all his words, not just those which, in hindsight, he considers appropriate. As Matt says above, “… on reflection I did feel my section title (Creepy "people, ethnic group and nation" introduction) was probably one that Wikipedia can do without.” Quite. However, Matt is welcome to strike it through if he subsequently considers his words to have been ill-advised or inappropriate, but it is not right that only some editors have the benefit of his stated views.

For reasons best known only to himself, Matt has decided to bring content issues here. While I believe this to be an inappropriate venue for this, I must respond. His misinformed OR/POV views permeate his posts. e.g. “My identity happens to be by-far the most popular in Wales: British Welsh.” (within para 7 of Matt's complaint, above). As so often with Matt's assertions, this is simply untrue. The 2011 census shows 2011 census shows “Nearly two thirds (66 per cent, 2.0 million) of the residents of Wales expressed their national identity as Welsh in 2011. Of these 218,000 also reported that they considered themselves to be British.” Q.E.D. Staying with content for a while, Matt also complains that “... there is currently no mention of the United Kingdom at all,” (para 7, above). Untrue again. Being part of the UK is not the most notable thing about Welsh people, nor is it true of them all (not all live in the UK or are UK citizens). That is why the UK is not mentioned in the first paragraph. It is, however, in the second paragraph, which states: “Today, Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain”.

I was interested to discover (para 8, above) that Matt is working on a new introduction for Welsh People with others, away from, and without notification at, the article talkpage. Sounds rather sinister to me. Shouldn't discussion about article content be open to all? Please advise.

Conclusion: I am sorry this has been brought here, wasting all of our time. Nevertheless, I would welcome a decision on how the WP:TPO guideline should be interpreted in this matter. I would also ask that Matt is requested to add only cited information to articles, and to bare in mind that, while fascinating, people have to spend time reading his rants, so talk page posts should exclude POV and OR and be succinct. Furthermore, I would ask that editors be requested to refrain from making assumptions (Matt, (para 8, above) and Ghmyrtle (at my talkpage) regarding other editors' motivation, which is against WP:AGF. Daicaregos (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Dai, people in Wales call themselves 'Welsh' - of course they do. If you ask them if they are British too, then 90% of them say "yes". IT'S NOT SCOTLAND, where between a quarter and third generally do not see themselves as British - it could be rising, we'll see by September. Your figure of '200,000 British' are people who just put down British, of the 2 million in the census (ironically I think I actually put 'Welsh', and told the guy who picked it up it wasn't clear which to put: he responded a bit oddly, by saying it will all be online next time.) The famously Welsh-speaking island of Anglesey has the kind of stats you are alluding to, where 66% of residents there said they are 'Welsh only', and 10% said 'Welsh and British'. Presumably most of the other 24% were either English, Scottish etc or just 'British'. That says everything you need to know. And yes, that island of the North of Wales could indeed be independent in another world, as it has a clear 'Welsh only' majority -- and that's one reason Wales has no single "ethnicity" in this 'modern' sense of the term. Dai, you want to call us all in Wales a single "ethic group", but it doesn't work. I'm one of a no-doubt minority in Wales who just (or generally, really) only refer to myself as 'British', but that doesn't make me any less Welsh! You are constantly trying to hide this diversity in Wikipedia articles, usually by attempting (and often succeeding) in removing the word 'British', or even 'United Kingdom'. I'm so tired of it. I've even had a year or so out and I'm tired of it. As people can probably see, it's actually making my head spin!

I've put my proposed new introduction to others outside of the discussion page largely because you are such a disruptive presence there, and frankly in all these areas regarding UK nationality. It might be me who eventually loses my temper, but I've never been the disruptive force. I essentially get called a 'POV-pusher' for telling people that apples are apples, and I get angry. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There was a previous proposal for a six month topic ban for both User:Mallexikon and User:Middle 8

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 and see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2. QuackGuru (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Mallexikon filed a malformed Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 which included unsupported claims. See this diff and see the comment by User:Jmh649 (Doc James) at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Outside view by Jmh649 .28Doc James.29.

Middle 8 endorsed an unsupported claim of skewing the facts but has since not withdrawn the claim.

Editors voiced their displeasure with the unsupported claim made by both Middle 8 and Mallexikon. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#Proposed six month topic ban of User:Middle 8 and User:Mallexikon.

User:Mallexikon and User:Middle 8, please withdraw your unsupported claim both of you made against me at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Skewing the facts because of anti-acupuncture bias. The evidence is against both of you. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#Proposed six month topic ban of User:Middle 8 and User:Mallexikon.

Middle 8 is continuing to make unsupported claims against me. Middle 8 accused QuackGuru of IDHT-ing on misreading Middle 8's edits but the claim by Middle 8 is not supported by the evidence. I did not misread the diffs. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Re: Outside view by IRWolfie-. Middle 8, please withdraw your unsupported claim in that thread.

Middle 8 is continuing to make unsupported claims against me in another thread. Middle 8 accused me of IDHT again without supporting evidence. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Section break. Middle 8, please withdraw your repeated unsupported claims.

Mallexikon restored the technical details about the set-up. I explained it in my edit summary this was discussed before. But Mallexikon restored the technical details about the set-up against consensus again. There was a discussion about the details in a recent RfC. The following text was part of the RfC I started: For example, QuackGuru prefers a summary rather than keeping the technical details about the set-up of the trials. The problems with the technical details was also explained here. The problems with the excessive details was also explained here.

I recently explained again on the talk page the extreme details about the set-up is undue weight and is not typically found in other articles. The closing admin wrote "RFC sample size could be greater, but only 1 real !vote for the greater information. The lesser level of information avoids getting into WP:MEDRS violating WP:COATRACK. If the trials themselves are notable the article should be about the trials, not the acupuncture results." See Talk:German acupuncture trials#RfC: What level of detail should be included in German acupuncture trials.3F. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems that those who have made the unfounded claims are not planning to withdraw them or provide evidence to back them up. Discussion with no difs continue. Probably best just to close it all and move on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Persistent bullying, harassment and endless threats

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

---

This is the second time that I am having to come on here to make a complaint. The first time, I withdrew my complaint because I did the decent thing and extended an olive branch to all those involved. But despite all attempts to calm the situation down which at times even involves me applying some humor to an aggravated situation, I am CONSTANTLY living in this nightmarish place of constant ridicule, bullying, harassment and endless threats. This has been going on for a while now and while I have stood up to the bullies many a time I think I now need this issue to be looked into very hastily. The last time I tried to lodge a complaint, I received a message asking me to try and sort it out on the editors talk pages. To be honest, short of me literally asking them to meet up so that we can discuss our differences over a cup of tea, I genuinely do not know what else I can do. I even stooped so low as to diss myself in order for this to stop. I have put a liitle essay-like article on my talk page which gives an insight to the state of my mind following these bullying tactics. I have DONE EVERYTHING only to be told that I "should stop playing the victim". These antics have gone on for so long that I have become like a schizophrenic. One minute I am cracking jokes, another minute I am tearing my hair out in anguish. I only came on wikipedia as a single-editor but now I don't know if it's been worth it at all. My aim was to stay since I loved creating the article and I wanted to be a part of some more projects but now I don't know anymore! How can people be allowed to carry on with this sort of behavior? Taking the mick out of your inexperience, taking a mick at an article you worked so hard to create, taking a mick at your identity. Just plain and simply taking a mick at the fact that youre a newbie. I did not put my article up for nomination but I do have the right to defend its ccredibility as an article without getting hounded and ridiculed. My talk page is constantly being hounded. Often times they come in the name of "peace, love and help". But minutes into the conversation you realise that they have a totally different agenda. Personally, this administrator who goes by the name dangerous panda has tried to right some wrongs because it is quite obvious that he nominated the article too hastily. His interaction with me have been confusing at best and threatening at worst. At times he comes across as if he wants to put the article back on AFC but instead of putting the question to me directly, he will offer it like he's only trying to help me and that he's doing me some sort of favour. I have had personal messages asking me about my username and that I work for the person whose article I created because I'm hiding my identity. They were even assuming my identity as being a man and all this was being discussed on my talk page. The last straw that broke the camels back was when a user who has been a constant presence on my page claimed to be offering me some friendly advice. The sarcasm was beyond belief and this time in quite a stern tone I practically tried to end the communication between us and any future ones he may be planning. You see, by this time I had had as much as I could take from this guy. Prior to that I had not actually been on his talk page to read about his mission or personal ethos on Wikipedia. But after our last interaction, I decided to find out who it was who kept on harassing me. It all began to make sense because this editor who goes by the name of Friday, claims to delete all "junk". Maybe that is why he is so sure that my article is going to be deleted. Because he is some expert on junk. As if that wasn't enough, he returns to the AFD discussion page to personally attack and ridicule the article I created. My responses are all on the page. But why this has now come to a header is that I am tired of panda constantly threatening that he will block me. I challenged him to do so but he hasn't. This is simply because he has no legs to stand on. But actually going ahead to block me or threatening me still goes down in my poor estimation of him anyway. My personal experience is that he operates on an intimidating " be afraid be very afraid of me mentallity" but that worked for a while until I was informed by some good people on here not to take any form of bullying. Not even from an administrator. Bullying is bullying whoever you are and it's not nice. I want this dealt with because I fear that he may block me because he can. I am done with the threats. If he wants to block me he should go ahead and do that. But if he has no grounds then he should leave well alone. I am really tired of this. I won't even go into the Religious pun and ridicule that Friday wrote on the AFD page because I think I made my point clear. But I would not want him to contact my page EVER AGAIN and if he does I will have to see how to stop him from coming on my page to harass and ridicule me. I have not been sleeping well because my e-mail keeps alerting me of constant activities on my page. I am pensioner who does not need this and I fear if something is not done about this Wikipedia may have its first case of suicide. I have informed my family in the unlikely event that something happens to me. I have taken shots of all my pages, e-mails, AFD discussion and talk page. Practically EVERYTHING. Please let this STOP !!Cowhen1966 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It is unlikely that anyone is going to read your wall of text. If you expect volunteer editors to take time out of their day to help you resolve a problem, respect their time and effort enough to write out a concise complaint that provides evidence in the form of diffs and specific violations—not a 1080p paragraph-less screed. N^oformation ^Talk 22:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how to provide diff. All I can do is write articles. Does that mean that my complaint should be treated any differently?Cowhen1966 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC) I am not disrespecting anybody's time. I am simply reporting bullying and harassment so if no one can do anything on here please let me knowCowhen1966 (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC) is the wall of text an essay I also think its referring to articles? The essay also says that sometimes by reducing the text you may miss out on important facts. Please show me the Wikipedia guidelines on putting a complaint up on the administrators notice board. It might tell me exactly what to do?Cowhen1966 (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

HI, Cowhen! I'm not an adminstrator or anything. I'm just nothing. But, I sympathize with your frustration, and ALSO, what you feel as a lack of ability to help other editors to see DIRECTLY what you complain about. Now, I have an offer: Place a single complaint, one after the other, on MY Talk Page; link to the page in question for each complaint! Then, together, we can formulate a criticism of what you have experienced, and that I also think should be reported. If WE two (I don't think we have any meetings from before??) might disagree on whether or not it should be reported, we discuss it on my talk page first. Ok with you?Arildnordby (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I felt saddened about how you feel about, and have been received at Wikipedia. I want to be a sympathetic and friendly face for you, because from your message, I feel you need that type of support. Don't feel any sort of obligation to list your specific complaints in some sort of objective hierarchy, just post on my Talk Page point after point. I will do my best to be a friendly, supportive voice here.Arildnordby (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@Cowhen1966 - You could start by saying who the editor is who you feel is bullying you. Then, the place or places where the supposed bullying is happening. Leave out your personal feelings and just provide the facts. BMK (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Having made a minuscule, wholly insufficient check, I believe that this is how the editor who made the complaint feels about, in particular, the AfD nomination of his Cecil Jay Roberts article. But, there might be lots of other instances here the editor feels have been totally bullying in tone.Arildnordby (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I, too, looked at his talk page, and the AfD, and in the course of that reading, I've seen Cowhen1966 accuse a number of editor of harrassing or bullying him -- pretty much anyone who did anything that Cowhen1966 didn't like, such as posting a warning template on his talk page, or nominating his article for deletion. Throughout the discussions that I've read, Cowhen1966 has shown a lack of knowledge of Wikipedia processes. There's nothing wrong with that, but when he's been corrected or help has been attempted, Cowhen1966 had shown an unwillingness or inability to learn, and an intransigence which, on the AfD, gets close to being tendentious and disruptive. Editors have sincerely tried to help, but have been met with "I didn't hear that" behavior.

From what I've seen, unless Cowhen1966 provides something specific, there has been no bullying or harassment, simply normal Wikipedia processes at work. BMK (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Previous ANI thread involving Cowhen1966 [163]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I take it you haven't been on my talk page then? Read the piece I put up on there about bullying. Even then I didn't know I would end up here again. And no this isn't about the article I created. It started there then it all became dark and nasty. Mind games, insinuations, ridicule etc. you are wrong if you think this is about some beady page I created. I just believe in standing up to bullies. Something I have shied away from in the past. And yes I have explained here on this page to some detail what has transpired over the last couple of weeks. If I was to write everything, it would fill an encyclopedia. Literally.Cowhen1966 (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you explain nothing. You do talk a lot about your feelings, but there are no details in this report about the person you're accusing and the specific events you are referring to. We cannot get into your skin, and cannot feel your emotions, so you must provide specific facts for the admins to make a determination on. I see none of that. You're asking for action, you must provide the evidence of the need for it. BMK (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I AGREE, BMK, that as yet, it is really difficult for us outside editors to find ourt about this, That is WHY I offer my help, and ear, to Cowhen, so that he can calmly explain in his own way to me various grievances. We really should remember that lots of technical expertise is involved being editors at Wikipedia, and some might feel that can't "break that particular code". So, that will be one of my ambitions if Cowhen chooses to talk with me, to formulate what we two will agree upon are grievances to be dealt with at ANI.Arildnordby (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope that Cowhen1966 takes advantage of your offer. BMK (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I give him personally, on my Talk Page, the benefit of the doubt, but NOT here. I am sympathetic towards him, and if I really feal that untoward behaviour towards this editor hads happened, or that an UNDUE AfD proceeds agains Cecil Jay Roberts, I'll retutn to fight. But, I won't do that, unledss Cowhen goes onto my Talk Page (me being a neutral observer), we talk together, and find what our commo ground is. I'll certainly not demand an inclusion on Wikipedia of what I regard as a NON-notable article, but there are lots of articles being at Wikipedia SOMEBODY might declare non-notable. It alkl depends, relative to MY OWN offer, how Cowhen chooses to respond to meArildnordby (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

thank you you're very kind. But I have done what Wikipedia says we should do after all attempts at reconciliation fails. If this does not achieve that goal which I hope it will, then I will simply move to the next step. I won't respond to anything with regards to the article for deletion page because I know an IMPARTiAL decision will be made. And well, if one cannot be made, then I shall cross that bridge when I get there. But for now I welcome the fact that I have reported for the second time this time in greater detail what I have been subjected to for the past couple of weeks or soCowhen1966 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The person closing the AfD will not make an independent determination of what is "right" or "wrong", because that is not their job. What they will do is determine what the consensus is of the editors who have posted comments. For this reason, at this time, the only way the AfD is going to be closed is with the deletion of the article, because you are the only one arguing for keeping it, eveyone else (including myself) has !voted "Delete". If you think there is going to be another outcome, you're fooling yourself, at least as things stand right now. BMK (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Cowhen: There is NO DEADLINE at Wikipedia!! That will ALSO, possibly, work to your advantage. If. for example, we two talk together, and I find out that either a) You have been unfairly treated or b) Your article is unfairly deleted, I am in my perfect right to demand reopening of issues. Please talk to me, I've left an explanatory message on your own Talk Page.Arildnordby (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you BMKCowhen1966 (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I was going to comment on my talkpage only, but I have decided that the information below is germane to the entire thread.

It's unfortunate that every time anyone gives Cowhen a piece of advice they don't like, they refer to it as "harassment" or "bullying" (see previous ANI thread noted above). Unfortunately, asking someone to simply read the policies they agreed to and actually follow the simplest of guidelines is neither harassment nor bullying. It's also bizarre that suggesting "this article looks like it was written by the subject" is somehow an accusation that they need to defend themself against - it's not. I think I've even been accused of acting without a neutral POV ... a laughable, unprovable claim - indeed, the evidence is quite to the contrary.

The simple fact is that there are at least a half-dozen respected editors (let's remove me from that grouping for a moment) who have tried to patiently and politely guide them in the right direction, but Cowhen insists and persist that they'll do things their way, according to their interpretation...or else.

If they have "threatened suicide", this would be unfortunate - this shows that they're far too attached to this subject, and should logoff and go for a walk - nothing on the internet should pick at one's psyche in such a way as to cause that feeling. We all have the ability to control how the internet affects us: turn it off.

As to this ANI itself, I'm not sure why I was notified: my name doesn't appear here. There are no diffs nor any evidence that I have bullied or harassed anyone - and if anyone on the planet reviews either the AFD or my edits to the editor's talkpage quite the opposite will be visible.

My "informal" and wholly detached reading is this: just like thousands of other editors in the past, we have an editor who wrote a reallllllllyyyy poor article, one that doesn't even appear to meet basic standards. We all know happens hundreds of times a day. Most editors happily take constructive criticism and develop into good editors in the long run. Those who are wholly unwilling to depersonalize and charge forward making wild accusations are eventually blocked. Hell, I've written crap articles that don't exist anymore either, and defended them ... up to a point. User:Cowhen1966 has actually been treated far more gently than almost all of those most persistent editors, but doesn't respond well to polite critique. It would be a shame to see them self-destruct in this manner.

If User:Cowhen1966 had an issue with me, they were required to address me directly. I disengaged from their talkpage after spending a number of hours holding their hand and moving them forward - only to be attacked. I have remained engaged on the AFD solely because I started it, and have since found that they have turned it into a farce. They should read one or two previous AFD's to see exactly how to participate in a community discussion.

I'm not sure how much more can be given to an editor who refuses to help themself. The possible way forward for Cowhen is to get a mentor - but it will need to be one with a thick skin, because history has shown that they'll be attacked on a regular basis. DP 10:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've mentored a few editors who had problems (with mixed success, though I like to think I helped somewhat in each case) and I'm a pretty patient person but with no offense to Cowhen1966 (who seems to be acting in good faith with a sincere intent to improve the encyclopedia) I wouldn't know where to begin. They are treating every piece of advice with suspicion, and responding to a number of attempts to help with outright hostility. I don't think that this is just an issue where an editor doesn't understand Wikipedia's processes, I think this is an issue where an editor has an inability or unwillingness to assume good faith from anyone. That combative mentality will never work on this project. It's a shame but I can't see a constructive way forward for Cowhen1966. -- Atama頭 16:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to say I am pretty disappointed with the ANI process and in all of you. An editor comes here to complain about bullying, clearly frustrated at the lack of action by anyone and they get blocked for their trouble. If any of you looked at the users edit history and talk page you could clearly see the bullying going on and by what users they were being harassed. But clearly none of you took the time. Typical and ridiculous! 138.162.8.59 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, Kumioko. It was certainly a huge failure of ANI that after a week of several editors attempting to help this person, they refused to heed advice, and based on many of the talk page discussions, easily turned on anyone who tried to lend assistance. While I see that you are starting to aim for maximum disruption with your trolling, I'm not sure this was the best case for you to try and make a WP:POINT with. Resolute 19:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's a thought Resolute. Maybe if you weren't always so negative and always putting me down calling me troll every chance you get, maybe I would actually listen to you. As it is though, I have no respect for you outside your ability to write good FA articles. Your bedside manner is sorely lacking. As far as the case at hand goes, I agree the user does have some room for improvement but I also see where he was constantly getting messages over every edit. That is very frustrating and having had that happen to me I can completely see where the editor is coming from. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Says the guy who trolls every conversation attempting to make it into a big disruptive circus that causes nothing to get done and nothing to get better, even the stuff he would like to see fixed. If you haven't figured it out, your actions alone have messed your situation up. Stop trolling and people will stop calling you a troll. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Block proposal

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 have to agree with Atama, and therefore I propose a week's block, to be most likely followed by an indefblock if there's no improvement in Cowhen's embattled attitude. I'm putting a block on the table in particular because I've seen Cowhen argue with some triumph on the AfD of his article that he can't have been making personal attacks, because he hasn't been blocked: "If this a personal attack why haven't I been blocked? After all I have had many warmings."[164] Why haven't you been blocked, Cowhen? It's not because you haven't been making personal attacks and assuming an unacceptable amount of bad faith, because you have. The reason you haven't been blocked is because you're new, and administrators have been leaning over backwards to be nice to you and not bite, just as other experienced users have been doing. But if blocks are the only arguments that you're prepared to take on board — not explanations, not olive branches, not warnings — then I guess there's nothing else to do but block you.

Please note that the block I propose is not intended to inhibit communication between Cowhen and Arildnordby. Such communication can just as well take place on Cowhen's page as on Arild's, and might indeed have a better chance if Cowhen can focus on that page, and no longer feels obliged to post to defend himself all over various boards.

Proposed: a one-week block for personal attacks and battling.

• Support as proposer. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC).
• Support per my words above (the inability to AGF) and per their own words that the lack of a block is tantamount to an endorsement of their behavior. -- Atama頭 19:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support as the recipient of a number of Cowhen's attacks, and in response to his many attacks on those who sincerely tried to help him. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support I've been thinking of this for a while, both because of the clear problems they have in interacting with people, but also because of WP:competence issues, particularly since they haven't shown any sign of improving and their problems interacting make it seem unlikely there's much hope for improvement. That said, I also support only a limited block for now so the 1 week is fine. The AFD should hopefully be done by then. They may come back and try a deletion review (which I think they suggested they would do) or otherwise make a big fuss, but I hope not. I know they denied any connection to the subject but I finally decided to check the remaining image (which I asked them to put up for deletion a few hours ago), and confirmed neither Google Image search nor TinEye find it anywhere else despite apparently showing the subject in his early years. So despite my desire to WP:AGF, I do wonder. I'm hoping that Cowhen1966 will be less emotive if it's clear that the article is deleted and not coming back (as I expect from the AFD) and they will then move on to working on other things. Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support a limited block to concentrate the mind. Nothing else seems to have worked. However, I very much doubt that he will continue editing here once the article is deleted. Even if it were kept, it is highly unlikely he would contribute to anything but that. From my experience, that level of desperation, aggression, and tendentious editing at an AfD is fairly typical of people who have a very close and personal connection to the article's subject. Someone should also close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Jay Roberts now. It's been running for over 7 days. Voceditenore (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I have read through the blocks of text above by Cowhen1966 and his comments on the AfD. I think as a new editor, he is a bit overwhelmed and doesn't quite see yet that it takes time and effort to understand Wikipedia policies. Some people get it more quickly than others. I notice that his editing has decreased, so he may be pausing on his own to think about what has happened. I think we should avoid block if possible, since this would be interpreted by him as bulling. Ultimately, if he continues along this path, I would favor blocking but I think we should wait a bit. I am One of Many (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: A block would certainly feed into Cowhen's perception of being persecuted. However, he's already seeing conspiracies behind every bush, so this would not be a new problem. I also share Voceditenore's suspicion that this editor will disappear after their article does. Friday (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support per the consensus here, I applied a one-week block, which should at the very least prevent additional disruption to the AFD until it's closed. This comment seems a pretty strong confirmation that they intend to continue their attacks and wild accusations unless blocked. The 'I'm a newbie' excuse doesn't really carry much weight when the problem is extreme and unprovoked personal attacks--it's not as though those are acceptable elsewhere either. Given the number of people who've attempted to reach out with kindness only to have it thrown back in their face, I don't think more of that is likely to help, but I won't discourage anyone from trying. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Obviously I support your block but you might want to let them know on their own talk page why they were blocked, what the duration is, what they can do about it, and so on (whether by template or otherwise). Not meaning to nitpick but it's only fair. I'd have left a template myself but I think it would be less confusing if you did so, as the blocking administrator. -- Atama頭 22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• A very good point. I left a message. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per I am One of Many. While Cowhen1966 has issues with comprehension and assuming good faith, I feel that a block of any length is counterproductive, and even if you disagree a week is massive overkill. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Torn If you want to block for personal attacks, go ahead. If you want to block to prevent further disruption on the AFD, go ahead. If you want to indef block, and only accept an unblock with conditions of a) strict civility parole, b) mentorship, and c) a topic ban from Mr Roberts, then I'm all in favour of that. I might even go for c) alone, if asked nicely DP 00:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Overly restrictive ambitions here I have NO opinions on justifications of currently imposed blocks herr, but I really think it is sad to see other editors rooting for indefinite blocks already. That is really premature, IMOArildnordby (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

So, you don't understand the difference between "infinite" (forever) and "indefinite" (until the community is convinced the behaviours will not recur)? DP 00:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. I don't see though, why one should root for even the indefinite (rather than permanent/infinite) block as a desired goal, without bothering to wait for the result of the actually imposed time-limited block.Arildnordby (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you guarantee he won't pull any of the same crap after a week is done? If not, then indef + conditions on unblock is actually the most sensible way forward to guarantee non-recurrence, and very standard DP 00:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any guarantees. He haven't even responded with any specific discussable posts yet, as per my invitation, although he has expressed genuine gratitude. I just feel that threats about indefinite blockings that some editors seem enthusiastic about issuing, isn't due- Yet.Arildnordby (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That tells me you're still confusing it with "infinite" DP 00:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support, Seems Cowhen's been offered help & advice yet seems to ignore or doesn't understand, Perhaps a weeks block might actually help.... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support after reading through the AFD (in its almighty entirety) and their talk page (what a mess). DP, Atama and Bishonen sum up the problem nicely. Seeing a new editor it's important to grant them some leeway, however seeing how many spoons have been brought in to feed Cowhen1966 it is getting to the point of "AGF isn't a suicide pact". In fact, I have nothing but respect for those who have tried repeatedly to help Cowhen1966 except it's time to cut one's losses. Blackmane (talk) 14:20, 25 February 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.

Request to close

The OP has been blocked for a week, and their claims to having been bullied or harassed have been examined by a number of editors, who found no evidence to support them - instead, the OP has been misinterpreting warnings and attempts to help as personal attacks. There would seem to be nothing left to do here except wait to see how the editor behaves when they return from their block. BMK (talk) 19:05, 25 February 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:NeilN keeps reverting my edits and calling me a troll =

I need an explaination. I have not been rude to anyone, I have not been spamming, I have not been vandalising. Why is this happening? Why am I being treated so poorly on my first day as Wikipedia editor? Why is this user feeling the need to revert my edits? Can someone check this guys contributions? --れ下がった (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Please review my block of Macktheknifeau

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.

---

Macktheknifeau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is unhappy that the consensus went against him here. The outcome has been that editors have decided to use "soccer" to describe the sport in an Australian context. Rather than challenge the consensus in a collegial way or try to establish a new consensus or a compromise of some kind (any of which I would be open to), he made a series of edits which changed "soccer" to "football", the opposite of what was agreed. This is a sample. I have blocked him for 48 hours for violating WP:POINT. Please review this block. --John (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen these edits on my watchlist and read the other discussions around naming conventions in australian sport. I agree that the series of edits Mack made recently are quite pointy, but I note he is not actually changing from "Soccer" to "Football", but from "Soccer" to "Association Football". As "Association Football" is the correct formal title for the game. My understanding from the previous discussions was that consensus was reached to use "Soccer" over "football" to avoid confusion with Aussie Rules. As the edits here do not do that, though they are pointy, they do seem to put the articles in a position where there can be no confusion and there is no issue over whether a "correct" term is being used. Fenix down (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It varies. This edit changes soccer to football. This is the opposite of what the discussion agreed. --John (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, WP:ENGVAR applies. It's also called "soccer" in Canada, even though we have the "Toronto Football Club" that plays Association Football. DP 13:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• The entire discussion, in which Macktheknife participated, was to stave off discussion for a while to let cooler tempers prevail and work on other things than the name. The block for pointiness is thus warranted. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Macktheknifeau's attitude was clear even before a consensus was reached. Their vote said: "Small group of Victorians can't be allowed to dictate changes to globally recognised name. Victoria doesn't have priority over planet." When Mack then defied the consensus, a block was justified. The post-block discussion between John and Mack is progressing somewhat. Mack claims that the anti-consensus changes they made were "inadvertent", although at the same time calling the consensus "illegal" (whatever that means). The last comment in the discussion is from John attempting to get Mack to have some insight into their behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• I've had my own run-ins with this editor over football/soccer-related articles (believe it came to ANI then as well), they are disruptive and do not abide by consensus or policies/guidelines. Good block. GiantSnowman 13:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not commenting on this specific case, but in general, I think it's a good idea not to do a block and then ask for a review. Instead, please discuss before blocking. If the threat is so imminent that there's no time to discuss, then obviously the block is necessary and there's no need to discuss. Jehochman ^Talk 17:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's up to the admin which way to do it. There's a spectrum between "imminent" and the length of time a discussion may take such that if one waits for a conclusion, the block may not be timely. It's not easy to forecast how long a discussion will take.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Isn't it our goal to avoid blocks? If a problem becomes stale without a block, but isn't repeated, that's a good thing. If the admin isn't certain a block is needed then and there, don't do it. Discuss the problem with the user or at AN/I and see if a resolution is possible. If the user goes and does the problematic thing again while the discussion is ongoing, then block. Jehochman ^Talk 20:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am absolutely certain a block was needed there and then. This has been discussed previously with the user and the user has previously been blocked once before for a similar but less pointed breach of policy. That block was reviewed at this board here. The general issues surrounding my enforcement of this area were discussed there and also here, here and here. I committed at the start of this process to having any admin actions taken in this area reviewed here at AN/I as a form of transparency and accountability. So far the community has been kind enough to endorse my actions in this area. If you have any serious qualms after reading these links I would like to hear them; if not I will continue to work to try to solve the problem. --John (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Good block. This editor has engaged in exactly this sort of behavior before; hopefully the block will result in an improved editing process for them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not really a fan of this idea of block review and as such agree with Jehochman, but in cases of disruptive editing (rather than simple vandalism etc.) a block is often a signal, a word to the wise, and a review, if editors and admins agree of course, can strengthen that message: this was not just a block by a single grumpy admin, and the behavior for which a user was blocked is indeed deemed disruptive by a group of editors and admins. Stronger signal, fewer claims of admin abuse. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• I participated in the soccer vs. football discussion, and I don't think it would be desirable for me to express an opinion on the block. However, I support the unusual mentoring that John has undertaken to resolve the long-term bickering, and I support the idea of bringing blocks to ANI for review as an exception to what is normally done. The benefit of discussions like this is that the participants will learn whether John's actions have the backing of the community, and whether future claims of INVOLVED are likely to be successful in derailing the process. There should not be many blocks, and the time spent reviewing them would be much less than the time required to deal with the soccer/football war if John's mentoring fails. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It is very wrong to block an editor and then a tart a discussion about them in a venue where they can't respond. While it may not be John's intention, he has engaged in public humiliation as a form of punishment. Blocks aren't to "send a signal," they are to prevent harm. If you want to send a signal you talk with the editor and if that doesn't work, go to this board and ask for additional feedback. Blocking and then denouncing the editor while they are blocked is not fair. Jehochman ^Talk 06:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually read John's post at 22:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC), especially the bit that said "This has been discussed previously with the user and the user has previously been blocked once before for a similar but less pointed breach of policy"? This is hardly a first offence by an otherwise perfect citizen. I have been routinely abused by this editor for being a member of and posting as part of some sort of evil group of supporters of another sport. He has been doing it for years. It is only John's incredibly thorough approach that is finally highlighting to administrators where the real problems lie in those discussions, and how bad they really are. Those of us who have been posting in good faith for years, and occasionally becoming frustrated at the absolute nonsense being repeatedly presented by a small number of editors, are finally seeing some justice. Anyone who bothers to have a proper look at what has been going on there, as John now has, will see the truth. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Your concept is flawed. An editor who does not respond to comments left on their talk page may indeed respond to a short block -- that's just (unfortunately) human nature. That makes the "sending of a signal" a legitimate part of the overriding concept that blocks are preventative, not punitive. Not everyone is predisposed to talk about what they're doing, some have to be persuaded to do so with a bit of force. The choices to be made differ from editor to editor, and espousing a blanket policy regardless of circumstances isn't particularly helpful. You might think about that the next time this kind of situation comes up. BMK (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately Macktheknifeau returned from the block and went straight back to edits which I regard as disruptive. Here they announced their intention to 'replac[e] obsolete terminology', and here they said 'I believe this consensus is invalid and will always work to correct it'. Here the user adds "football" in violation of the consensus and here in a particularly POINTy edit changes 18 instances of 'soccer' to 'football', in violation of the agreement. This edit to their user page is also illustrative. I have blocked one week with the intention that the next block would be an indef. I have also raised the possibility of a topic ban which would allow the user to contribute in areas where they can do so without disruption. --John (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Good block, bad thread. That is, fine to do the block, no benefit to starting an ANI discussion after the fact. NE Ent 21:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I take your point. Per this I will no longer post admin actions in the area for review here automatically. I will ask an uninvolved admin to scrutinise them instead. Thanks for your patience and support as I tease this issue apart. I think it is almost there now. If anyone felt like reviewing User:Macktheknifeau's latest unblock request in light of the above, that'd be great. Otherwise we are maybe done here, except to ask one last time for any other admin eyes on the area, to preserve admin accountability and transparency in this rather unusual exercise I am attempting. --John (talk) 21:54, 2 April 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.