Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive827

o

A charge of wikihounding**

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.

---

Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) feels they're being hounded by Jaggee (talk · contribs). This all started with an ANI thread, now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive824, "URGENT: potential serious copyright policy violation". Jaggee is a new editor who noted a possible problem in an article Luke had been working on; a somewhat lengthy thread with some animosities was closed without action toward either editor. As a result, Jaggee made various comments on their user page (now changed, but see this version). It is noteworthy that they took the supposed copyvio to ANI, claiming that's what WP:DCV suggested they do--but read Jaggee's talk page, "A second welcome to Wikipedia", where I remarked that this is the last thing it suggests, not the first. The only article edits Jaggee has made were to that particular article, Allard J2X-C-- Luke's work, and passed as a GA by Resolute. They they went on to comment on that article's talk page and on a related thread at WP:RSN ("Car racing websites"), pertaining to a DYK nomination by Luke. They made no other edits besides on my talk page and a few others, nothing in article space.

Further unpleasantries are found on my talk page, where you may find Luke being a bit brusque, accusing Jaggee of being a sock (that evidence does not yet need to be hashed out here, in my opinion). But essentially, it seems to me that Jaggee indeed has no other interest as of yet besides Luke's work, and that fits our definition of hounding, a type of harassment:

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Both LadyofShalott and I suggested that each find their separate corners in which to edit, so to speak, advice that Jaggee did not follow given their edits to RSN, for instance, and what I am asking for here is confirmation that this means that Jaggee should find another corner, not one where Luke is already editing. This shouldn't be a difficult thing to do given the large number of corners available. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm perfectly happy to have myself and Jaggee kept separate, as I've said publicly a few times. Maybe that way I'll be able to return to editing in peace (or be able to take a break in peace, equally) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• (ec) I affirm my prior advice, which as Drmies points out has not been heeded. Luke seems to want to stay away from Jaggee, but the reverse is not true. Perhaps a formal interaction ban is what is needed. LadyofShalott 18:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• I had previously given Jaggee similar advice, likewise not taken. Perhaps indeed it needs to be set up as an editing restriction. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Luke feels they're the one being hounded?!

Luke on Jaggee at Talk:Allard_J2X-C yesterday: "Wrong, and since you're only here to disrupt this article, you've yet again failed to look into anything. " (and more of the same in the past).

I don't know Jaggee from a hole in the road. But I do know that we have AGF. They're also a new editor. Even if they have acted entirely wrongly and excessively over the very minor off-wiki copyvio issue in this article, they have acted reasonably over that issue. Their actions could be mistaken, over-reactions and mis-placed, but while there is the slightest belief that they are a new editor trying to find their way through the impenetrable forest of WP:ALLCAPS, then we have to give them leeway to get it right or wrong, as best they can. We DO NOT leap on them and accuse them of being bad faith socks, troll and Luke-taunters. Even if they are, we have a strong policy that we act to editors as being genuine, until it's demonstrated beyond doubt that they aren't. Yes, this lets us be exploited by the real trolls from time to time. It's also overall a key means for us to improve access for genuine new editors (which I still do believe Jaggee to be).

Jaggee: please find some motor-racing articles to work on that are some distance from Luke. I'm sure this will improve the editing experience for both of you.

Luke: please lay off Jaggee and act as if they're genuine. I can't ask you to believe this, but please act towards them as you would towards any GF editor. If they're not, lots of other people will spot it as well, so don't worry about it.

Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• I refuse to act like I'm blind, deaf and dumb; which is how I would have to act to assume Jaggee was new. Everything they have done screams of a returning editor, and things well beyond your own involvement have furthered that case. Don't forget that other users have expressed their own doubts, or, in the case of User:Beyond My Ken, completely agreeing with my analysis of the situation. If Jaggee is a new editor, then I'm Bill Clinton. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Also, yes, I am the one being hounded. Everywhere they've visited has been either somewhere I've already contributed in, or something directly related to something I've been involved in. I haven't followed them anywhere. To claim otherwise is ludicrous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Andy, you are essentially asking for the same thing I'm proposing here. That initial ANI thread, pshaw, not the biggest deal. It's the rest of it, the recent edits, that brought me here. If it hadn't been for those Luke wouldn't have had any reason to say anything but as it is, I think they are right to feel as if someone is breathing down their neck. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a very one-sided account of my, so far, short career as a registered Wikipedia editor.

On my first day, I spotted a potential copyright policy violation in Allard J2X-C. My first edit, a nervous and hesitant attempt, to alert those responsible to what I thought was a serious problem in that article, was totally reverted - as "Unconstructive and unhelpful."! Determined to right the wrong, and after reading through numerous paragraphs of dense policy text, I stumbled across the suggestion that, if the "contributor has been previously clearly warned of copyright infringement but persisted", as was clearly the case here, the contributor should be "reported for administrator attention to the administrators' incidents noticeboard" - which was exactly what I therefore did - with my second edit.

One well informed administrator, ignoring the pleas from those ignorant of copyright principles and without even a working knowledge of the applicable Wikipedia policy, did take the initiative - and swiftly purged the article of the dodgy material, thus vindicating my action. Note that Lukeno94 continued his fight to keep it though.

What followed was an astonishing series of personal attacks against me, including a tirade of irreverent bile peppered with puerile profanities from Lukeno94. I won't quote them here, but here are links to a few of them: [1], [2], [3], [4].

Upon viewing further results of a search of links to mulsannescorner.com, I came across discussions about another articles (Template:Did you know nominations/Lavaggi LS1 and [5]) which also involved Lukeno94. Having seen the comments about the ureliability of the website, I added it to this discussion. That addition was swiftly pounced on and bad-mindely removed by Lukeno94. I added it back the next day, convinced I was right, but was again [6] swiftly reverted by Lukeno94 (note the inflammatory summary). Another editor restored my point, vindicating my action.

Lukeno94 seems to be paranoid that I am "hounding" him. I AM NOT, I don't know (or care to know) him from Adam. What I am doing is highlighting poor use of poor references, nothing more. And I am beginning to regret signing up now. But this storm in a tea cup has aroused suspicions of cover-ups and back-scratching too, and I am not going to be intimidated it. Lukeno94 seems to be here to boost his ego, not to create great, policy compliant, articles, and I think he needs a serious slap on the wrist for reacting so badly when his infallibility is challenged. Jaggee (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If you stay away from each other, and agree to report any issues like the previous copyright issue to an uninvolved administrator, we can put this to bed pretty quickly. Nick (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

My only interest, so far, is the use of the mulsannescorner.com website as a reference, whether Lukeno is involved with it, or not. Jaggee (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Plus, I'll happily contribute via an intermediary - if you can name one or tell me where to find one. Jaggee (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jaggee, if I have to put together a comprehensive report of how you are clearly a returning user here just to abuse me, then I will do so. Until then, you can drop the lies like the one about how you came across the DYK nomination; you didn't edit for four days, and yet magically cropped up again to appear there. Just like you've lied to several admins; claiming you want no further part in this and would disengage. If you want me to take you apart piece by piece, then I can put together a case that will make it obvious that you are not legitimate. I have an idea of a couple of people who you could be, but that doesn't actually matter. I never claimed to be infallible; in fact, at the very beginning, I stated that had you actually come to talk to me with the issue, then there would've been no problem. Instead, you didn't, and you've made it ever more apparent that your claim to be a new user is a flat-out lie. And I'm not even the one who initially used the term "hounding". "contributor has been previously clearly warned of copyright infringement but persisted" is a flat out lie as well; I received no warning, and in no way can a template in an article count as a warning; but then you know that already. Just one more example of your lies. I've made thousands of good contributions here; you can justifiably claim one, so who is the egotistical one, acting as if they know better than everyone else? Is it myself, who has admitted to mistakes, or is it the "new" user who acts like they know policy inside-out and has only ever edited in things involving me? I wonder.
• And claiming that to be your only interest is a lie. Claiming that I have some involvement in the website is beyond a joke. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That is nothing more than additional unnecessary, and to be ignored, intimidation. And no, you can't convince us that I am accusing you of being involved with that website, just of being involved with some of the articles that have used it. Calm down - stand back and look at look at my modest contributions again - then review your (over)reactions. Perhaps you do need a break from this. Jaggee (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think both of you need to stay away from each other as much as possible. While Luke is obviously frustrated by the fact that Jaggee, currently a single-purpose account, is stalking him (which can be verified by a quick look at the latter's contribs), Luke has also been rough towards Jaggee as evidenced by his comments regarding the latter. Epicgenius (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'd be perfectly happy for that to happen (particularly when I'm not dangerously overtired, like I was yesterday). I have no problem with genuine editors bringing up issues in things I've done; but I strongly object to this SPA. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jaggee: - either disengage and edit in other areas, or you will be blocked as a disruptive single purpose account. Your smug, patronising tone towards Luke is not welcome here and is unnecessary. I'd suggest giving you a week to demonstrate you're happy to edit constructively without following Luke around or editing the same content (although I'm going to stop short of a full topic ban since we don't really know your editing interests). If we don't see any evidence you're capable of normal editing, I'd propose we indefinitely block your account.

The issue you raised has been dealt with and resolved, administrators are aware of what has happened and Luke will undoubtedly take more care in future not to link to a potential copyright violating content, so there's no need for further action. If you do have any other issues you wish to report in connection with Luke, I'm happy to handle them as an uninvolved administrator. Nick (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like nothing more than gratuitous victim blaming. This is not a "single purpose account", in your sense anyway. This is an account that, after spotting, and reporting, a violation, has been blamed, victimised, vilified and dragged through the streets. And for those reasons alone, I have not had a chance to spread my wings, yet, and now you seem to be seriously suggesting they be clipped, and an artificial restriction applied, because another editor cannot control his own temper and behave civilly towards someone who has criticised his work here.

Btw, thanks for the offer to handle the issues with Lukeno - perhaps you will look at the other unresolved issues that I have already raised. Jaggee (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• We've had plenty of people contribute here saying that Jaggee should disengage from me; can someone wrap this up with some kind of binding solution? I really don't care if the ban is one way or two way; I just want to be able to contribute effectively in peace, or actually take a break. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It's probable that Nick's warning above is about the best you're going to get at the moment - but you've now got an uninvolved admin keeping an eye on his editing, which should help. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Propose interaction ban between Jaggee (talk · contribs) and Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) (listed alphabetically) to expire 30 days three months after imposition.

The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others. Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way. For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to:

• edit editor Y's user and user talk space;
• reply to editor Y in discussions;
• make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;
• undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

• Support as proposer. As a general rule, I don't think ibans are the best tool in the wiki toolbox -- hence the suggested expiration date -- but I think one might be useful in this situation. NE Ent 21:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC) (amended 14:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC))
• Support interaction ban, but make it longer (probably three months initially, I wouldn't entirely be adverse to an indefinite one), and obviously clarify that this means Jaggee needs to not snoop around my edits and attempt to create more drama, not that it just means they cannot contact me, or directly edit an article/article's talk page that I have already edited, or have written. Obviously, the same would happen in reverse. Anything to remove potential loopholes that they could use to carry on the abuse that has genuinely been making my life a misery for the last few days, and has taken out all of the enjoyment I had editing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Time period adjusted. Oppose any modification of standard iban terms. NE Ent 22:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• A few more have voted since the 3-fold increase, so "adjusted" time again to the next order of magnitude - as there is very clearly an appetite for revenge here. Jaggee (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not proposing any modification, I'm proposing a clarification. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as that would be pandering to the wish of the bullies. I found fault, and am being vilified as a direct result. The main aggressor here would, in effect, be protected against further similar, vindicated, scrutiny. Jaggee (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• You found one thing that was a grey area, and have hounded me ever since, trying to make out as if I am the biggest sinner on the planet/project. And that's disregarding anything regarding the true nature of your identity. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That's bollocks, and you know it. Shame on you for behaving so sanctimoniously and playing to the gallery the way that you are. Jaggee (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, what else have you done? Pointed out that someone else was unsure about the reliability of a source, which was something I was already aware of, and that source is on a list of reliable sources for the Motorsport WikiProject? Those are literally the only two things you have done, that aren't purely hounding me. That's not "playing to the gallery", that's the facts, sunshine. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not what else I have done - it's that I have not done most of what you claim I've done. Yet many here seen prepared to swallow your apparently intentionally misleading account without question. And it is the clear clamour for blood here that you are playing to, with your ever more deceitful contributions. Jaggee (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Supprt - speaking as someone who a few days ago told them to find separate corners of this very large website in which to edit. LadyofShalott 22:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - @Luke: I believe the standard interpretation of an interactive ban will cover your concerns. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Jaggee is clearly the aggressor in this case; Luke's frustration and occasional bluntness is understandable. Jaggee's combative refusal to accept any fault at all - his recent changes to his user page make clear that he thinks he is being baited and bullied by the community - are a bit much even for a new user. The community ought to think about penalties should the interaction ban be violated, as a deterrent. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I still see this as just as much about bullying by Luke as I do about any hounding by Jaggee. If such an interaction ban were introduced, then it would first of all exclude Jaggee from motorsport, an area that's obviously of great interest to both of them. That's an excessive restriction on such a flimsy accusation. Secondly, I just don't trust Luke to act with a reasonable collegiate approach to Jaggee under such a restriction. It's all too easy for such a ban to be used as a very one-sided future excuse to drag Jaggee back to ANI on the slightest pretext, blowing that up into "Already banned user disrespected the state of WP by abusing his ban conditions", the crime of lèse majesté that is one of the few things WP ever does act upon. Such an action is unlikely to work against an established editor like Luke, but it's a very common way for new editors to be driven off the project. Just look at Spmdr (talk · contribs) who was hounded off for disagreeing with Luke over the Sunbeam Tiger article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yawn, change the record. No-one was hounded off at the Sunbeam Tiger article, and I wasn't the only one being highly sceptical of the claims made by this user. In fact, I wasn't even doing any hounding at all, so you can cut that bullshit claim out right now; most of my comments were made to you, and I reverted a grand total of once. Thanks for reminding me exactly why you're holding a grudge against me, though! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• And I am so guilty of hounding Spmdr that my name appears a grand total of 0 times on their talk page, whilst the other editor disputing their sources, and who was rather more active in reverting their edits, has 10 mentions (including one comment by Eric). So you're as bad as telling the truth as Jaggee is... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• It would not exclude Jaggee from any topic area. As there seems to be a misunderstanding of the terms of a iban, I've copy-pasted the applicable text from the policy to the top of the thread. NE Ent 14:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is, as the wording stands, it would still allow Jaggee to come and manipulate articles I have written, and I would then be unable to remove the changes if they were detrimental (like adding in maintenance tags that have been resolved - I couldn't remove those, and would have to get a third-party involved), and this would worsen the existing situation, in some ways. This is why the user should be restricted from editing any article (but be free to edit the talk page) which I've had a heavy involvement in, and the reverse would be true as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• As is often the case, the "letter of the law" hasn't quite caught up to actual practice. There have been several instances where an editor has followed another editor's contributions to various articles where the first editor had never worked before, and, without actually deleting or changing the second editor's contributions, has edited the article. This behavior has then been found to be a violation of the IBAN, as an indirect form of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. It's like having a 150-foot order of protection, and the person shows up and stands exactly 151 feet away over and over again. It's not a violation of the order, and it may not be something that the law can deal with easily, but we're not a legal system and we can make - and have made - the determination that such behavior is a violation of the purpose of the ban. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I guess that'll do then. I would also like Andy to stop spreading lies, but that's his prerogative for now - at least I've stated the truth in public about that situation (it's a long-term grudge that he seems to hold). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Luke, please back off. I don't think your continued comments are helping any of this either. LadyofShalott 22:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

He has reverted to type. Anyone who takes the trouble to look-up the history to this case against me will see that his belligerent response to my naive first edit was the root cause of all this. He came over all indignant since, but it was all a front I'm sure. He is not able to handle criticism civilly and is thus not cut-out for this type of work where close cooperation is necessary. Jaggee (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Jaggee. Seriously, you thought that was an invitation to get in another dig? Both. Of. You. Need. To. Stop. Acting. Like. Children. LadyofShalott 22:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is less than I proposed, I guess, but I will support this at a minimum. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Looks like there's consensus for this, can we have this wrapped up please? (at the very least, this post will stop it from archiving) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• I absolutely disagree. The vote for a 30-day/3-month penalty might have achieved majority support, but there is no consensus at all that the offence itself had actually been committed. I explained the course of events that led to me visiting the pages in question, and haven't seen any evidence or argument, let alone consensus to support the alternative (paranoid) interpretation of Wikihounding. Without an offence having been committed it is absurd to suggest that any penalty, even if it have 100% support, should be applied. Jaggee (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• ^^ A response like that is a fairly good sign of why these sanctions are called for. A textbook example of WP:NOTGETTINGIT if I ever did see one. I second the motion for a swift close and imposition of the community sanctions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• So where is all this "hounding"? Rather than "not getting it", this still looks more like paranoia by Luke. We should not go this far, on this little evidence, for so new an editor. All I've seen so far is some clumsy handling of what was actually a valid IP rights issue, and not even one directed particularly at Luke. That's square in the middle of AGF.

The worst I've seen from Jaggee so far was his comment just above, as noted by LadyofShalott (and I agree completely with her comment). However even that is still a long way short of iBan-worthy hounding. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Which is why you !voted against the proposal. However, the clear consensus among the entirety of the !voters was to put the IBAN into effect. Jaggee (and you) can certainly argue that that consensus is not justified, but what Jaggee did was to deny there was a consensus at all, and that is simply patently false. There is a clear consensus, and an uninvolved admin should really close the thread and put the IBAN into effect, since there's been no additional !voting for a while now, just repeat commentary from the same people. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I see a majority call for the iBan, but I still don't see consensus that Jaggee committed substantial hounding to justify it. Where is it? His edit history is still tiny overall. Overall, this looks unedifying like a bandwagon of "Just block 'em all, let Jimbo sort 'em out" and we're supposed to be better than this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• The only "consensus" to be found is about whether to impose on IBAN or not. That clearly exists. I'm not sure why you're looking for a consensus about underlying issues when the discussion (in this section) wasn't focused on that. This is not an ArbCom case, where every action needs to have a finding behind it, this is a community discussion, a much less rigid process, on whether an IBAN will benefit the project. Clearly they found that. The reasons for people !voting the way they did may well be varied (Bill may think it's because Jaggee has misbehaved, Hattie because Luke has misbehaved, and Xander because both have misbehaved), but there is no requirement that there be a consensus on the reason for the IBAN, just consensus that the IBAN would be helpful. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• A vote for a ban for a ban's sake - despite there being no evidence of any wrongdoing - is that what you mean? Jaggee (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I should note that Jaggee is once again trying to stir up controversy where there is none, by deliberately misrepresenting things and not doing any proper checking, on the Lavaggi LS1 talk page. Yet more evidence for why this user needs to be prohibited from interfering with me; this time there wasn't any case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't recognise your description of my contributions as all I have done recently is ask for clarification of unsourced engine information on the talkpage of a racing car article - here. I think you are misrepresenting me - again, and I wish I knew why. Jaggee (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• You did not ask for clarification; you claimed that sources were "conflicting" with information on the article. One bit was already sourced elsewhere, which you completely ignored, and the other bit was easily verifiable had you done a Google search; policy is that something must be verifiable, not necessarily verified, and this was EASILY verifiable. A constructive user, if they were that upset about one missing reference, would've done research to see if what was in the article was accurate, and added in a reference. You did not do that, and you made a false claim or two in the process. Yey for you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• There you go again - I made NO false claims. I suppose you are banking on some of the huge quantities of mud you are throwing sticking. Why are you acting like this - do you behave this way with all new users? It's like a trial by fire. Jaggee (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• "There seems to be conflicting information in the article and sources about the engines used." Verbatim quote of what you wrote, which is clearly incorrect. One of the engines was already directly cited in the infobox, the other was cited to a ref that was a little vaguer, but was not "conflicting"; the only LMP1 engine AER built at this time was the P32 (although I have found that some of our articles are giving the wrong versions of that engine). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• And there is still not a single edit from this user that hasn't been directly linked to the "dispute" involving me either... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, support, as the bulk of Jaggee's edits are related to Lukeno94's edits. The WikiStalk report shows six unique pages where these users' edits overlap. Interestingly, Jaggee only has edited eight unique pages since registration. The only non-overlaps where Jaggee has edited are at User:Jaggee and Talk:Lavaggi LS1. Epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, perhaps there's something wrong with the WikiStalk tool because it shows similar results for me in relation to you too. I think it shows stronger evidence that Lukeno is stalking me anyway, because on 4 of the 6 pages you mention, his edits followed mine, rather than mine his. Or perhaps it's the interpretation of the results that is faulty. Jaggee (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jaggee: It isn't a one-way interaction ban. It will prevent Luke from commenting about you or talking/interacting with you, as well. Anyway, now that I see the WikiStalk report between you and me, I also see that you've made some edits to other pages recently. Epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jaggee, how can you remotely claim that I am stalking you? You've edited Allard J2X-C, Talk:Allard J2X-C, Talk:Lavaggi LS1 - all pages I wrote, or the talk page of pages I wrote, and are therefore on my watchlist, you've edited ANI/RSN threads where I've already been involved one way or another (I posted before you in the RSN thread), and I first edited User:Drmies' talkpage on the 5th of May, 2013, as you can see from [7]; a page I have edited 32 times, so I guess we can clearly see your bullshit lies for exactly what they are, and as further proof that you are WP:NOTHERE to do anything other than hound me, troll me, and misrepresent/flat out lie about anything I'm involved in. Absolutely ludicrous claims from you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• And beyond that, you've edited User:Yngvadottir's talk page, directly in regards to this "issue", you've edited User:Beyond My Ken's talk page with regards to comments he made about this issue, and you've edited your own User and talk page; using the User page either as a platform for your lies, or as trolling - and that's been pointed out by various editors in this thread alone, so hardly evidence of me doing any "stalking". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I would encourage those interested to take a look at recent edits around Talk:Lavaggi LS1. I see Luke's attitude there as far from the ideal, yet it's being reported here as if Jaggee was the one entirely at fault.

I'd also note that we're talking about a new editor with edits to only two articles: maybe they're both created by Luke, but then someone had to create them. All I see here is two editors with a common interest in motorsport, not evidence of stalking or hounding. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• We're not talking about a new editor, we're talking about a new account, and that is obvious to most people other than you, it seems. My attitude may be "far from the ideal", but you try having a brand-new account following you around and flat-out lying about multiple things. I cannot fathom how you are still able to defend an account whose entire purpose so far has been to shit-stir on things I have been involved in; there are literally no edits from this user that are not directly attributable to either the Allard J2X-C "debate", or the Lavaggi LS1 "debate", and that is not paranoia, that is an unavoidable truth based solely on their editing history. Unless this user is you, I strongly encourage you to actually look properly, and not let your dislike of me blind you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• "how you are still able to defend an account" - AGF.

This blew up out of nothing. An editor/account appeared and made a reasonable series of edits (maybe not correct, but reasonable) that you objected to. Much ink was wasted on various talk pages. When they moved to another article and raised similar issues (again, maybe not correct, but reasonable), you objected to them again. I think you're being paranoid, and seeing socks under the bed.

I agree, the shit-stirring since is concerning. Whether this is an editor who's actually interested in the project, or who just likes farming the old drama llamas, isn't clear. Best thing Jaggee could do right now would be to do some valuable expansion work on a motor racing article that is a long way from you. I'd still prefer to see a voluntary distancing rather than a formal iBan. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:Assume good faith is not a suicide pact - and any AGF that could potentially have been there at the start should be well out of the window now, in the face of incontrovertible evidence. I would happily keep my distance voluntarily, but that is impossible when Jaggee comes after me, which is what it has been consistently. Note how that for the four days that I didn't edit, Jaggee didn't either, and yet they returned the same day I did. In line with their general actions, that isn't coincidence; those were four days in which they could've easily destroyed any of my claims of them being an SPA by editing something that I hadn't. They did not do that, and still haven't done so... (and by now, it is probably too late to make the "look, I can edit elsewhere, I was legit all along" claim) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Luke does have somewhat of an attitude problem, but in his defence, he is young. Once he enters his twenties and gains some more maturity, he will likely become less brash and arrogant. As for Jaggee, he is new here, and AGF should come into play. A community enforced interaction ban is hardly fair to a new user whole really only needs some guidance and a little more seasoning. They should be asked to voluntarily avoid each other. Failing that, a strong suggestion that Jaggee read, or re-read the policies here would seem in order, along with a warning to Luke to cool it. - ^theWOLFchild 06:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jaggee has been asked to voluntarily avoid me by several admins, as evidenced by the discussion above. They have failed to do so, by constantly wandering back into articles I've written, and therefore I am forced to respond. AGF might seem viable, until you look at the timing of the account's appearance, where and what it appeared in, and the fact that when I took a four-day break, they stopped editing altogether, only to return on the same day I did. Assume good faith is not a suicide pact, and there is simply no explanation for the account's actions than that it belongs to someone with a grudge, who created the account to hound me - as I said, the timing of its creation, the fact it hasn't edited anything that isn't to do with me, and the fact that it didn't edit for the same period that I didn't. As someone who has never had any sanctions of any kind, I didn't take the request to sort out an interaction ban lightly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is in danger of being archived, and still no action, despite the consensus being clear. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If anything, the fact that Jaggee has continued Wikistalking Luke, literally logging in only after Luke logged in and then editing the same articles, only adds more evidence to the pile. Wearing kiddie gloves with a new user who refuses to get the point can only go so far. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User:MezzoMezzo, I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, or where the "pile" is - perhaps you could reveal that to us because there was no stalking. I only edited one article (Allard J2X-C) that Lukeno94 was recently involved with, and the first of the two (yes, just 2) edits I made to that article was my first edit ever, and I was not aware of Lukeno94 then. The second was the next day. I did not edit any of Lukeno94's articles after that, and was absent for a few days for personal reasons unconnected with Wikipedia. Jaggee (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Support interaction ban and strong admin warning - Wikihounding cannot be tolerated. Any violation of the ban should result in an indef block. I see community concern and consensus here, and call on an admin to step up. Jusdafax 06:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you User:Jusdafax, point us to any evidence that unequivocally shows hounding? In the time between my first edit and the accusations being thrown here, Lukeno94 had edited umpteen articles whilst I had edited just one of them. Please explain and justify your implication. Jaggee (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Why has nothing been done about Luke's continual failure to AGF and personal attacks on a new editor - accusation of lying, socking, et al? It's not surprising that, in these circumstances, the newcomer feels attacked, doesn't respond optimally and finds it difficult to disengage. It is not the way to treat newbies. If we want to retain new editors, we need to do something when established users treat them badly. Luke should have been warned and, if he continued with his failure to AGF and personal attacks, blocked. Neljack (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• So you've not looked at the situation at all then? It doesn't take long for clear evidence of deliberate misrepresentation and flat-out lies to be found. In fact, I've directly quoted some in this very section. A newcomer does not wander into an article that is at GA on the day the review is undertaken, on a topic that is notable but relatively obscure. The chances of this legitimately are so microscopic that they are unreal. They do not then somehow magically find their way to another article that is in the middle of a DYK review - particularly when again, the subject is notable but relatively obscure. They do not stop editing altogether in a four-day period where I did, only to magically start up again on the same day that I returned from my brief break. AGF is not a suicide pact, and your comment shows a clear lack of any inspection of this case whatsoever. If we want to retain experienced editors, we need to actually have input from people who are not so lazy that they're just going to spout obviously false rubbish. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Also, accusations of socking are not a personal attack. Accusations of lying are not a personal attack when there is evidence to be found that lying has indeed taken place. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for closure

Fully understanding that a community ban discussion is not a matter of simply counting !votes, at this time there are 8 support !votes and 2 oppose !votes, and the discussion regarding a mutual IBAN between Jaggee and Lukeno94 has been ongoing for 9 days. Many community ban discussions have been closed with fewer overall votes, and less time of discussion, so I believe that this one qualifies for a close. Can we please have an uninvolved admin take a look and close the discussion? Thanks. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 13:31, 21 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.

Name calling

Mrm7171 called me a troll four separate times over two days on the health psychology talk when disputing my edits. He also lodged that epithet at me when commenting on his additions to the health psychology page. I want him to stop. Iss246 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Below are quotes from the health psychology talk page.

You have REVERTED 6 timers now within a 24 hour period. Stop edit warring. I am going to report you. Provide rock solid reiable sources next time and stop personalizing. You seem to me to be a troll, who pretendes to be a professor of everything. I doubt you actually have qualifications in any field of p-sychology based on your poor editing. Leave professional articles that you obviously have little knowledge of alone and concentrate on your OHP club instead! Or provide RELIABLE SOURCES please. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

All iss246 does on Wikipedia is try to insert falsely this unregulated small club called OHP and try to align witgh proper regulated professions in psychology. You are nothing but a 'troll' iss246.

Unwarranted accusation. I am bringing you up on charges. Iss246 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Iss246 I doubt if you are actually an academic iss246. hat we know about you is that you are an internet troll. You post 'OHP' wherever you can in any legitimate area of the psychology profession you can. I do hold a Doctorate in psychology for your information. But that is irrelevant. Who cares! Its irrelevant. If you were a scholar of any sort you would realise that topics in science like the 2 areas you claim are only ohp research are actually researched and applied by many different fields and published in many different journals. No, I think iss246, you are an untrained 'OHP practitioner" who wanted a career change and did not want to train in the many years it would take to train to be a professional Health Psychologist or professional Occupational Psychologist.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty clear iss246. If you were a scholar of any sort you would realise that topics in science like the 2 areas you claim are only ohp research are actually researched and applied by many different fields and published in many different journals. Stop trolling. Lifecoaching may be more your cup of tea. That, like an 'OHP practitioner' also allows any career changer like yourself to become, without any actual training.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC) [end of Iss246's opening statement, ed.]

I have not reviewed the edits in article-space but did review the Talk page. iss246 appears to show appropriate conduct, while Mrm's behavior is essentially harassment and personal attacks. Saying that iss refuses to discuss the issue, then pouncing on him with personal attacks when he does, is a sign of baiting. Mrm shows a strong habit of focusing on the editor, rather than the article, in a generally disparaging manner.

In my view, we should have a zero tolerance policy for this kind of behavior, which is not only disruptive to Wikipedia, but negatively effects retention. If Mrm's accusation of stalking is true however, he should provide examples of other articles where iss246 has allegedly followed him.

BTW - whether an editor is an expert in a topic does not effect their credibility as a contributor, though it sometimes helps, and sometimes inhibits, good editing. CorporateM (Talk) 15:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• With all due respect the history between iss246 and myself goes back almost a year. You looked at a tiny, final snippet where iss246 had just reported this, and then tailored his responses for a moment. I have been subjected to masses of verbal abuse by iss246 over many months and can provide 100,200 examples. Instead I hope we can refrain from personal abuse, and focus solely on editing from here on. Stop personalizing and just focus on making Wikipedia's articles better for the general community, that is readers. Please don't judge me on a tiny fragment. I for one think we can all move on, and cease completely any further childish name calling, rather than me go back over almost a years worth of records and provide over 100 hard core examples of iss246's personal abuse toward me. Apologies to administrator for the placement of my replies on this page.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I agree with CorporateM. Mrm7171 seems to think s/he knows more about psychology than anyone else and thus behaves as though no one else is qualified to make changes to psychology-related articles (check out some of his/her earliest edit summaries...in all caps, mind you). S/he also shows egregious ownership issues of psychology articles, and s/he has even been blocked for this kind of behavior before. Maybe a topic ban is in order?

BTW, Iss246, you never informed Mrm7171 of this discussion (as is required), so I did just that. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about not informing Mrm7171. I should have asked a third party. I don't like going on his talk page. And I don't like him going on mine. Iss246 (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

My responses to iss246 yesterday were after months and months of long term abuse by iss246. I can collect at least 100 examples. For months iss246 has posted on his tall page, filthy, baseless lies and defamation, calling me a troll, thinking he knows best about everything, he is a professor. Therefore his opinion was all that mattered. I had enough. I am human. No-one can tolerate that type of long term abuse. Below is the section of filth still boldly pasted on his talk page, and left there for months.

On iss246's talk page he has this filth still posted. Nice guy!Mrm7171 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"Here is what we know about you Mrm7171. You are an internet troll. You have a bachelor's degree. If you earned a degree, I don't think the degree came with much distinction. You don't have a Ph.D. You didn't complete a post-doc in anything. You like i/o psychology perhaps because you took a course in it. You think you are smart but you lack understanding. I write that you lack understanding because you selectively ignore what I write. For example, I write that Tom earned a Ph.D. in behavioral pharma yet you ignore that fact although the fact is in Tom's page on LinkedIn. Or you assert I don't like Tom because I objected to your using a reference found in a blog. That does not translate to dislike. But you did the translating (better to call it mistranslating; intentional mistranslating). Good thing you don't work as a translate or at the U.N., then you would really ball things up. You are not that smart." courtesy of iss246

Wow, thank you so much iss246, for your kind words. For the record. No, I am not a troll. I also do hold a Doctorate in Psychology and almost 30 years experience. But really, who cares! Seriously I don't care. Nor is that relevant. In fact, unlike many others I have known I don't even use my Dr title anytime. The only reason I mention this now, on my own talk page, is that iss246 refuses to delete his defamatory, baseless, childish comments about me above still posted on your talk page. So, self defence I guess.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171 did not put my angry response into context. My response came after he placed on my talk page walls and walls of unnecessary text that included needling recommendations to act "calmly." Mrm7171 did not mention what I wrote at the end of my angry response, which was to I ask him to never write on my talk page again. Iss246 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

In response, I know no more, or no less, than other editors. I have made excellent edits on Wikipedia. In many articles. I have been subjected to masses of abuse from iss246 over months and can provide literally 100 examples of abuse toward me such as the section posted on his talk page. Countless times iss246 talks on and on and on about how he is a professor, he knows best, etc etc etc...I can provide 100 examples. I had enough. I also hold a Doctorate in psychology but who cares!. Holding Doctorate or being an expert is irrelevant on Wikipedia. Mrm7171 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I could not care less about my doctorate. Never have. Never will. Who care's! It is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Everyone's opinion is equal. Don't use it in my title, where most others do. I know no more, no less than anyone else on the psychology topics. No individual's opinion matters any more or any less.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not true. I was blocked because when I first joined Wikipedia, I broke the 3 revert rule, once. I then learnt from that block. Being blocked once should not be brought up again and again to abuse an editor? Surely?

On the Occupational health psychology page here is what was written in October 2013 and only recently revisited the article. Admittedly, after re-reading iss246's posting of his filthy, abusive defamation which remained on his talk page, my reaction to him personally came out a couple of days ago, and called him some names too. I realised straight away and apologised for my childish replies in self defence to iss246's long term abuse! We are all human. We all have a limit. No-oner stepped in and stopped iss246 from his abuse. Everyone saw his abuse. It has remained on his talk page for months.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Note to any administrator. I have stepped right back here. I have not reverted anyone's edits today and would not 'blindly revert' anyway, without discussing first. Iss246 is a very experienced editor, who clearly knows what three-revert rule (3RR) violations are. In fact, I posted a clear warning directly above, so there was absolutely no doubt. Further no experienced editors like Bilby have a thing to say about it, despite me asking for advice where to post this. Today, within a 12 hour period iss246 has engaged in continual blatant edit warring. Iss246 has reverted at least 7 of my good faith edits without a care for Wikipedia's strict policy applying to all editors not to cross the (3RR) line. I will not engage in edit warring, or be dragged into a continual edit war. I realize my own editing will also be assessed by an administrator. So be it. I accept whatever an administrator of Wikipedia decides to do here.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why in the world did you post all this in the middle of my comment? That really confuses things. And if you can really "provide literally 100 examples of abuse toward [you]", well, let's see some examples. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what a mess. I can certainly provide a lot of references. Just added one from today at the base of the page. If administrator wants examples give a day or two and I will collate them in a coherent manner. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure what to do. Frankly, after looking over various talk pages I'm inclined to throw a block in the direction of MRM if only out of irritation over the caps, the bold, the odd insertions of comments, the aggressiveness, and that there's supposed to be a Ph.D. attached to all that yelling in somewhat sub-par language. Would an IBAN be helpful? I'd warn MRM for personal attacks and all that, but Iss has also called the other party a troll. I can't judge whether MRM's edit history warrants such an appellation, but the comments pertaining to Iss are certainly trollish. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for bolding. And using capitals the other day. Won't do that again. Just read this message.Did not know the policy on bolding either. Sincere apologies.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I am at my wits end after being abused and attacked and accused by iss246 of everything under the sun. As a human, after a year of abuse, I got angry the other day. I am only human. An example just today is iss246 accusing me of not reading an article, that isi am lying. It has been endless. Here is his comments from only today.....

""Mrm7171 claimed to have read the article but never used the quote until I introduced the quote. This makes me suspect what he knows about the Everly article comes strictly from my writing about it.".... courtesy of iss246 only today!

I did not lie. I read the article. Why does iss246 have to accuse and insinuate and attack constantly. Then one day, I snap. And give hime some back, I'm going to be slapped with a barring or whatever? That would seem grossly unfairMrm7171 (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Off iss246 goes again on the base of the Talk:Health psychology all day. I cannot stop him attacking me, accusing me of bad faith. Twice today. I remain silent as I very often have. Cannot an administrator look iss246 personalizing, attacking, accusing constantly. Can he not just focus on editing? Can no-one stop him from doing this. Here is another example. I remain silent. As I mostly do, under his relentless attacks and personalizing instead of focusing on editing only. Please refer to today's accusations and personalizing, by iss246. Again apologies for 'cracking under this relentless personalization' and accusations of bad faith by iss246. I normally try and ignore his attacks and remain silent as Wikipedia recommends but this is ridiculous. We are all human. That is the only reason why I cracked the other day. Iss246 also avoids answering direct questions regarding actual editing. Talk:Health psychologyMrm7171 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Given this is on the administrator's page here, can an administrator please go to the Talk:Health psychology and read all of the last day's rants by iss246. I just re-readit and feel like I need to respond to his false, baseless accusations. I refrain. I keep silent. What do you recommend? All day, iss246 has personalized, accused, attacked. Not focused on editing. I stay silent. What do you recommend. Can you warn him please. Can you ask him at the very least to stop this relentless, personalization and focus only on editing. Please!Mrm7171 (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, sure, gladly. I did. And what I see is a rebuttal on their part of accusations made by you. You say "I stay silent"--no, you don't, you're here again, doing a passive-aggressive dance in which you play the victim. I urge other admins to look into this matter to see if more drastic measures are necessary: I am going to block for the latest talk page disruptions.

  I note, for instance, that Mrm is the one playing the personal card on that article talk page--quite inappropriate, with headings such as "Fake references cited by iss246". They started the latest section, "Please stop accusing me of lying or not reading a journal article iss246!". One can't fault Iss for responding. The clincher, perhaps, is this edit here--the old "there you go again", with "Stop the abuse and personalizing please" as an edit summary. I've had enough of this: blocked temporarily for personal attacks, article talk page abuse, and general disruption. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been an issue for about 8 months. Iss246 hasn't always responded well, but Mrm7171 was confrontational from the start, and often seems to be goading Iss246 and other editors. I had hoped that things would calm down, but they seem to have fired up again after a break. Hopefully something short of an indef block will help, but intervention is needed. - Bilby (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition to personal attacks Mrm7171 keeps starting long and unending debates over minor points on talk pages that continue even after several editors disagree. Points that seem to be settled will be brought up again weeks or months later. I hope the intervention will help. Psyc12 (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Like Bilby, I've spent several months at Talk:Occupational health psychology (and now Talk:Health psychology) trying to resolve this dispute, basically since Mrm7171's appearance there. Speaking in my capacity as a volunteer editor who has been dealing with him since around the time of his first block, Mrm7171 appears to have a WP:COMPETENCE problem. This problem is IMO not likely to be solved. I believe that Mrm7171 would sincerely like to be more effective, but he comes across as an intransigent POV pusher with odd beliefs. For example, he makes comments about professional psychology associations being "clubs" with a "hidden agenda". He keeps starting, and then dropping, these weird discussions about whether "OHP" is the same thing as "occupational health psychology". He complains frequently that it is possible to be a practitioner of occupational health psychology without first being a licensed clinical psychologist (this is not unique to OHP; for example, professors of psychology are legally called "psychologists" even if they are not licensed, and all sorts of nurses, allied health workers, and even medical doctors are professionally involved in psychology without being licensed psychologists).

Like Bilby, I'd prefer that this was handled without an indef, although with each encounter, I'm less confident that this is possible, and I would not be surprised if other people deemed it necessary. An WP:IBAN would need to involve more than Iss246, as Mrm7171 has significantly directed his anti-OHP comments towards at least one other editor. I think that at topic ban from anything related to psychology might work. A TBAN for anything smaller than psych (e.g., health-related psych) might be too difficult to understand the boundaries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing has been remarkably patient through months of difficult interaction with Mrm7171. I'm sorry to say that Mrm7171's contributions have been (with rare exceptions) nonconstructive and disruptive. Not only that, his ideas and his style of discussion are so odd that I feel that he will probably not be able to change sufficiently to become a useful editor, at least within the areas of his distinctively strange ideas. I would support a indefinite ban, preventing him from editing all psychology subjects. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone (myself included) noticed that Drmies blocked Mrm7171 three days ago. (NAC) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I did. The block is for two weeks. I think it would be more efficient to talk about what should happen when the block expires than to come back and go through this all again in eleven days. we need a long-term solution, not a two-week break followed by a return to disruption. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Never do today what you can put off indefinitely. Two weeks of real life is a great antidote to wikistress, and AGF is that when Mrm7171 returns with a fresh perspective they'll be able to contribute effectively. Support reclosing the thread. NE Ent 22:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be overly optimistic there - this isn't an issue that has flared suddenly, so much as a long-term pattern that is going to need to be addressed. But I'm uncomfortable with trying to tackle this while Mrm7171 is not able to take part. Thus I'm not opposed to letting things sit and see if we need to come back later, with the hope that we won't have to. - Bilby (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why this was reopened? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue hadn't been resolved. Or at least, we need to confirm that it has been. - Bilby (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue, which is a long-term inability to function in this environment, has not really been resolved. It's only been postponed. I do agree with Bilby that it feels a bit unfair to have these kinds of discussion when the affected person is only able to post to his user talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, it's just been postponed--but the continued personal attacks warranted administrative action, in my opinion. One way forward, a typically ANI way, is WP:ROPE--see how they act upon return (and NE Ent is perfectly correct in being optimistic). Drmies (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef block: Per others, behavior seems unlikely to change at this point. CorporateM (Talk) 14:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I note that Mrm7171 continues to speak to us via his talk page. Judging from what he wrote on his talk page, he shows little insight. I support CorporateM. Not wanting to write on Mrm's talk page, I made my judgment plain on the health psychology talk page today. Iss246 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Iss246: an article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for diff-less rebutting of a blocked user's diff-less accusations posted on an entirely different page. Please {{cot}}/{{cob}} that particular section (Talk:Health psychology#Comment on the January 21.2C 2014 claims Mrm7171 wrote on his talk page).

In the future, please ignore such posts as the new text Mrm7171 has made, until/unless it is posted to a behavioural noticeboard such as here or an uninvolved editor asks you what is actually going on. Even then, get it off any article talk pages and use {{diff}}s to direct attention to any behaviour or edits you are discussing. @Psyc12: that goes for you, also. Mrm7171 has twice now deleted the posts you have left on their talk page. They are blocked and angry at the both of you; let them cool off. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Mrm is indeed still venting on their talk page, but there is longstanding consensus that users are allowed to vent in that way while blocked. What matters is whether they continue to do so and/or continue their disruptive behavior once the block has expired. I'm certainly not willing to be more punitive (OK, preventive) than I've already been. Having said that, I hasten to add that they are clearly listening; I have again pointed at my explanation for the block which, for the record, is not for bolding or whatever. See above, my post of 19:32, 16 January 2014, and see WP:ROPE for a prediction of what the future might hold--let's hope I'm proven wrong. And again I endorse NE Ent's comment and thoughts; let someone please come by and close this. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:CensoredScribe overcategorizing

I've come across CensoredScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been creating all sorts of silly, unnecessary categories, largely centered around fiction. For example, they created Category:Alternative reproduction in fiction, Category:Fictional racists, Category:Brain transplant in fiction, and so on. They've been warned about this before, but they've created quite a few categories since then. Just thought I'd bring this up here to see if anyone had any thoughts. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There were some comments about this editor here, including comments from me. Georgewilliamherbert said he was going to follow up with that editor but it doesn't appear George did. I have my general concerns about the compatibility between what that editor does and what we're supposed to be doing as Wikipedia editors, the aims just don't quite seem to meet often enough. Zad68 03:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I was cleaning up after this editor earlier today when he added a bunch of articles to strange and ill-defined categories, or to categories that are just plain wrong. I was thinking about perhaps proposing a topic ban for category-related edits, but I would certainly like to hear from CensoredScribe before suggesting this. The exchange here about the subject does not inspire me with confidence however.--Atlan (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Right... I'm not sure preventing only category-related edits will really fix the problem I am suspecting here. Can anybody review this editor's history and point to a clear area of net-positive contributions? Zad68 04:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking of a topic ban over a block because CensoredScribe is obviously well-meaning. But going by their talk page, there are definitely more problems than just the category one. Perhaps a case of WP:CIR.--Atlan (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that link is what I was thinking of when I was writing my previous comment. Zad68 04:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Was the warning justified? No. Move on. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe over the last month has had their edits to add categories reverted by over a dozen editors for the zealous overcategorization. However it's not just overcategorization, it's placing original research categories into the articles as well. Some are of dubious thought diff, some original reseach diff2, and some just plain left field diff3. They have created multiple categories, gone on a large categorization spree then after other editors have removed some of the categories from articles subsequently blanked the categories and had them deleted. Some have also gone to deletion review. See deleted contribs. The users edits are not malicious and are certainly not vandalism they're being conducted in good faith. However they are causing a lot of work for other editors to clean up and a minor bit of disruption. Not all their edits are bad either, some are useful and reasonable such as the category Body swapping in fiction, which is a good one to have (not sure we have something similar so it's useful.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add that I also found this editor's contributions troublesome. It is all unsourced and WP:OR at best. Categories need to be supported in the articles at the very least. I question the utility of many of them. His work is sloppy enough that many of us have had to jump in and clean up after him. That is not constructive editing. It should be collegial, in that he learns from his mistakes and cooperates to improve articles. How many warnings and speedy deletions does he need here before action is taken? Elizium23 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

My edits to non medical science articles are statistically largely acceptable; such as on the environmental effects section of plastic and the bioremediation of assorted heavy metals; hydrocarbons and black carbon. Before I added categories my edits to mythological subjects were also rarely reverted; like the relics section on Gautama Buddha. With the exception of this recent categorization issue; my only other problems were with not using secondary source medical articles; which I did end up using correctly; making lasting contributions to HIV AIDS explaining the experience of aids patients in China and noted that Bonobos are immune to SIV.

Most of my categorizations are correct; excepting Blade Runner and Starwars (mostly the prequels). I suppose the idea replicants are alive enough to be considered slaves is not explicity shown nor that replicants not being allowed on earth would be akin to immigrtation in fiction. For Starwars I accurately listed Bobba Fett as an aviator like Luke and all the other characters; and listed Darth Vader as a racing driver similar to Captain Falcon do to the Podracing scene; I also listed him as a child soldier because he fought in a military action destroying the droid control ship in the battle of Naboo. He didn’t invent anything though; because he didn’t have a laboratory or machine new parts like Iron Man or use the force to mold the materials with his mind or anything; he just put pod racer junk parts together as a mechanic. Jedi and Sith are now just a category of swordsmen because there are so many of them. I think all the force users count as super soldiers and soldiers depending on their power, they seem to possess at least a few force powers with super reflexes and jumping as a standard even for a barely force trained Jedi like Luke.

Flying cars in fiction, aliens zoos in fiction, martial arts tournament anime and manga and tournament anime and manga are all easily definable and have numerous examples. I forgot to add the Jetsons as having flying cars; those cars being able to collapse into briefcases makes them fall under the same category as the Transformers. I did not add flying cars to Starwars because I stopped editing Starwars pages in protest of the EUs imminent demise and the prequels being rightfully hated. Fictional telekenetics is a good category I’ve added including many Jedi and Sith but also others like Jean Grey.

Speaking of the Matrix. I still think Neo has telekenesis because he is listed as having super speed and strength which he does not have outside of the virtual world of the Matrix. The abilities possessed in the Matrix should count as the characters spend most of their lives and the film inside of the Matrix. This would also apply to movies where most of the film is a dream or where a lot of super powers are shown in the afterlife.

I realized alternative reproduction was far too vague; as is artificial person. Artificial uterus in fiction is a well defined and commonly occurring category however; though in retrospect ecto womb would be a better name for the category as the wombs in brave new world are harvested from cows. The other examples included in artificial reproduction in fiction would have better categorized as Homunculus in fiction; and Synthetic biology in fiction.

Mythological rapists and rape victims are valid categories and the discussion is ongoing. The xenomorph from alien has been stated by Dan O'Bannon to be a rapist. There are legend of coyote having a penis long enough to go across a river. There is also a raven legend like this. My edits to various articles in the mythology project have been constructive. Mostly it is adding references from lives of the necromancers; however I also added a section to Inanna from the page for dominatrix.

The amount of female sword fighters in video games anime manga and fantasy horror and science fiction is enough the category should be renamed. I supported that the category be renamed in the discussion like with the gender neutral firefighter and police officer articles. I listed Picard and Word as being swordsmen because they spend a significant amount of screen time practicing those skills and do use them. I also added the page mythological swordfighters. For goddesses and gods depicted wielding a sword or who have legends of them wielding swords.

Fictional multidimensional will be a small category; however it has a narrow definition which excludes simply being from another dimension and walking through a portal as it is limited only to characters who posses shapes impossible in three dimensions. The Cheshire caat being non Euclidian is mentioned on the cats section on the page for alice in wonderland so at the very least a reference needed tag should be added to that paragraph.

The fictional characters with nuclear abilities and fictional characters with gravity abilities are going to be small categories; unlike characters with electrical abilities. Really the biggest mistake I think I’ve made recently in terms of original research was listing the Kryptonians as having gravity abilities; which is only ever briefly suggested by Lex Luthor. I could provide a reference to Hulk being a living nuclear weapon that absorbs universal atomic energy. Godzilla is referred to as having a nuclear reactor for a heart in Godzilla vs Destoroyah, and Godzilla going through nuclear meltdown is treated as a serious threat. Being a living nuclear reactor should count as having nuclear abilities. Also Kaiser Ghidorah has gravity beams which is a gravity power; and as other TARDIS models have functioning chameleon circuits; should be considered a shape shifter. The TARDIS can also control a black hole which would make it count as well. Captain Atom has nuclear abilities; just as Gravity and Graviton have gravity abilities. I believe the TARDIS is also telepathic so that should be noted.

I am surprised however that fictional characters with radiation absorption or resistance isn’t a category. This category would include the Kryptonians and the Hulks; as well as Starfire and the super mutants and ghouls in Fallout. Most but not all of the Godzilla Kaiju show this ability on screen. The mainstream continuity Spiderman exhibits radiation resistance during his fight with Morlun; I’m less sure of the fantastic four; in the future I would ask others on the fantastic four talk page whether their gaining their powers would count as this; or if there are later storylines where they survive large amounts of radiation.

I categorized several characters incorrectly as invisible more than any other category; the issue was whether invisibility through technology counted. I removed the Predator and Terry Mcginnis from this category, however Motoko Kusanagi from Ghost in the shell is still listed despite her invisibility being technology based; most of her being a technological prosthesis.

Fictional Yogis is a valid category which currently includes only Dhalsim from street fighter.

I added wookies as a race as slaves; however if this is correct most non human races in Starwars should be listed as slaves. The only other fictional slave I added was Jessie Pinkman; which no one is debating. It would also be appropriate to have mythological slaves and slave owners.

Brain transplant in fiction and body swapping in fiction are being discussed; they are both good ideas and it’s important to distinguish brain transplant from mind swapping. Body hopping seems to be the best way to describe Quantum leap; though that show in particular is difficult to define correctly as it’s inconsistent as to whether Sam has the abilities of his own body or of the person he leapt into. My other positive contributions which have remained for several weeks are fairly miscellaneous. It’s specifically characters not episodes or storylines that most of the reversions are occurring.

I have however made several valid contributions to fictional characters. I’ve made positive contributions in the past and in the future in other subjects; if allowed to edit again will bring more things up for discussion on the talk pages. It’s been a lack of references not poor references which has been the problem.

Please note you are not blocked from editing. The Censoredscribe account is not blocked, and your editing of the project is not prohibited. People just wish you to get involved in some discussion and abide by community consensus where appropriate. Feel free to edit under your account rather than this IP. Canterbury Tail talk 00:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to limit categories to ones where there is a meaningful article behind it? Some of the examples being listed here are heading towards WP:OC#TRIVIAL (e.g. bald people could be fictional bald people, people who use a sword or a gun) and the other aspects in WP:OC. If there's to be a category like flying cars in fiction, there should be a decent article about flying cars to back it up. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no permission that controls category creation. There is a long stand problem in that any editor can create a category, populate it with one article and we have a valid populated category in 50 seconds. Now to delete that category someone has to find it, tag it and start a CfD discussion that will take a week and fall into the 2 month long open backlog to be closed and processed. So the work to cleanup takes more time and more effort. Not sure how we fix that. BTW, some of this class of categories, created by an editor that we think is not trying to follow the rules, that do survive CfD. I'm making this as a general comment to answer this question. I have not intentionally looked at the categories involved in this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@CensoredScribe: You may want to have a look at WP:TLDR. -- œ^™ 13:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe after his keyboard is back from the repair shop. EEng (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Uncivil conduct of User:LazLong Sr

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 contacted User talk:LazLong Sr about an editing issue regarding Greater Houston and while I have been able to help correct one issue that LazLong has had with the article and edits removing content related to universities in Galveston, I think that his attitude has been increasingly uncivil even though I feel that I have been helping him. Can anyone please give some assistance here? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've warned him about personal attacks. Minor incivility was once dealt with at WP:WQA but brilliant minds dismantled it. The best choice when faced with obstinence is abstinence...in other words, back away, go back to discussing on the article talkpage to obtain consensus, and use WP:DR where needed. Not everyone is a wiki-expert, and not everyone is able to see 2 sides ES&L 10:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute that's resulted in frayed nerves. I don't see a pattern of incivility that requires administrative intervention, or anything like that. ESL is right in suggesting the DR process, as well as giving yourself a break from the dispute. Sometimes just giving yourself 24 hours to think about something else can be beneficial, even when the dispute has run for weeks or months on end. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I asked about it on IRC and somebody suggested ANI but I'm fine with another venue. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds great to me. As long as he doesn't come to my talk page and attack me, I fine with it. Didn't know this process was here or I'd used it earlier. I'm not a "professional Wikier" and honestly don't care to be. I am a professional member of the media and I do seek honesty and balance in the few Wiki articles with which I am concerned. Thanks for your time. LazLong Sr (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as a professional member of the media, no self-respecting member of any media organization would call someone names like that ... it's wholly unprofessional ES&L 18:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please, exactly what names did I call him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LazLong Sr (talk • contribs) 19:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry, for not signing. I'm not used to wikiways LazLong Sr (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:WhisperToMe should have provided some differences showing the incivility but I suspect that remarks like this and this are what they are referring to. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should provide diffs next time. Since much of it was on the same page and was left up I thought it would be apparent. The one that prompted this discussion was this one. This was the one before it, and this one before it said "At this point in the process, it really doesn't matter to me what you think. You've clearly shown your "true colors" as it were." WhisperToMe (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

ATTENTION - ES&L and . —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's

Please notice he has continued his attacks on me just a few hours after you suggested he lay off for at least 24 hours. This is how the entire disagreement started in the first place - Instead of a civil discussion on the article's Talk Page, he came to MY house, my Talk page, being intrusive, rude, and berating. When he should have stopped, he repeatedly returned to my Talk page with his boorish attitude.

I see he's now done the same on your page - twisting my tail here. So much for "backing off." He really has a great way of showing respect for your suggestions on how to curtailment the ill will he's fostered. LazLong Sr (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and ES&L I still respectfully ask you to point out these "names" you accuse me of calling him. Thanks for your attention. LazLong Sr (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You really don't recollect calling WTM a fool and a pompous ass? It was only yesterday. Bishonen | talk 16:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC).

Those are not names. Those are proper descriptions, in my opinion, of MTM's words and actions on my Talk page. LazLong Sr (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Darn, I'm sorry. I didn't sign in properly. I really do apologize, I'm not a real wikier and not comfortable with all the logins and tildes so I have to go back and correct. I'm not doing it intentionally. LazLong Sr (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

ES&L and . —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's --- I'm sorry to make multiple entries without allowing adequate time for your response. Please believe me, I am not attempting to bully you by stacking things up with repeated entries. That was done to me, and it is not right to do that to someone. All that said, I'd like to remind you, I DID NOT seek out this post war. I started no attack on anyone. Someone took a civil discussion away from the article in question, aggressively brought it to MY house, to my personal Talk page, and commenced to attack and talk down to me. I responded to this affront as I would any such attack "in my house." I defended myself and yes, retaliated. I DID not seek out this fight, but I won't be bullied in my house. LazLong Sr (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have read the exchange on your talkpage - and the purpose of that talkpage is, indeed, to talk to YOU, and it belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation as is provided for that purpose. There is only ONE party who is uncivil on that page: you. You're the one who begins with accusations of some form of racist agenda. When the person apologizes for an error of theirs, you attack them, and continue your subtle but obvious accusations of racism. You eventually refer to them as a fool. Sincere attempts by another editor to advise you of Wikipedia policies and norms CANNOT be considered an attack. Let me repeat in case you missed it: you were never attacked on the talkpage - you were asked to follow set policies that you agreed to when you signed up to this private website, and they pointed out a few areas where you have been failing to keep up to your end of the bargain. ES&L 10:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. I disagree with them, but I'm then not a professional wikier, just a professional member of the working media. LazLong Sr (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, there are no "professional wikiers", and your status as a "professional member of the working media" is not relevant to your status on Wikipedia, one way or the other. Secondly, if you disagree with those "opinions", then you need not to edit on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and when you edit Wikipedia you must follow these policies and guidelines, or you will - if you ignore or flaunt them - be blocked from editing until you agree to. Thirdly, I see that you comment on your talk page that you are here "attempting to keep the FACTUAL TRUTH posted in a very few Wiki articles" - "Truth" is not what Wikipedia is here for. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth; it is a sad but true fact that professing an agenda to promote "The Truth" is almost invariably a sign of a bad editor. I'd suggest you step back, take a deep breath, Read up on some relevant policies, and then either resume editing while following them - or, if you can't follow them, not to resume editing at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Beginning to feel like a hindquarter in a shark feeding frenzy. Thanks for that Bushranger, especially the links. I completely understand "verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material" and was pleased to see it's been amended to consider sources balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight. Some semantics - I believe "FACTUAL TRUTH" is defined as verifiable, irrefutable facts, and a step more stringent than verifiable alone. I do need to do much more reading on the "wiki way" and think a lot of this event stems from multiple misunderstandings - almost exclusively mine. Much of the animosity stemmed from what I perceived as someone taking a discussion from the article's Talk page and lecturing/attacking me in what I perceived as my personal space, my Talk page. I read others Talk pages and did not see such taking place there. More over, I felt what was brought there missed the core of the problem, that being why was everything about a major, world-renown city removed from an article where it clearly belonged. I was already distressed about the article's "serialization" of anything to do with the City of Galveston as if it were a virus, coupled with what I wrongly perceived as a personal attack in my personal space, and basically I blew a gasket. Things then quickly escalated in a back and forth that needed to stop or at lease slow down. I should not have wrote the things I wrote, especially in the hateful manner in which I wrote them. But at the time I felt I was defending myself, and my "home" - as mistaken as I now realize that feeling to be it none the less was what I was experiencing. Honestly, I wasn't aware how truly visceral some of what I wrote was as I only recently went back and read it. I apologize to all for this, especially WhisperToMe. I have learned much from this event and hope to continue learning.

I do have a question of "correct wiki action" at this point. Should I leave up or clear the page of the argument - not ES&L's admonitions which of course should remain?

And one more - Who is in charge or top rank or whatever? How does one know?

LazLong Sr (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you :) - There is not any one editor who is in charge. User:Jimbo Wales is one of the founders and he has some status from that, but he is not in charge either. The Wikimedia Foundation board oversees all of the projects but they are not involved in day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

My bad WhisperToMe . I took things you did wrong, incorrectly made assumptions about Talk pages, was ticked, got bent, and bowed up. I think you're from Texas and understand my idioms. Again, sorry. All that said, is there a list of suggested reading concerning the general wiki-world and how to navigate it? Is there a mentoring program to aid people, keeping them from stumbling into a wiki septic tank? Am I even asking these questions (and making apologizes) in the right place or should I go to "your" talk page ? back to "mine"? punt? ---- Crap, messed up again. Thought I was logged in. Corrected LazLong Sr (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

At the very top of your talk page there is a welcome template under which there are a number of blue links that are very useful for new editors to read. There is indeed a mentorship program, you can read a little about what is involved at WP:MENTOR and seek out an adopter at WP:AAU. Some mentors have multiple adoptees and may be unable to mentor you but they often can direct you to another user. The WP:TEAHOUSE is another very good place for new editors to ask questions and get help from other experienced editors. It's much more informal than a mentorship arrangement and if the editors there don't know the answer they usually know someone with the requisite knowledge. Blackmane (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all who provided information and constructive criticism. LazLong Sr (talk) 22:59, 22 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.

Cad and the Dandy - edits by Josephgallos

Much to my disapointment, I must request aministrator intervention re Cad and the Dandy and the edits of Josephgallos. Since getting involved with the article Savile Row some 2+ years ago, and getting that down to a less spam-like form, I have taken an interest in related articles. One such is Cad and the Dandy, created by user Josephgallos. I don't question WP:NOTAB, but persistent revision by Josephgallos - and nearly breaking the three revert rule - have recently brought to my attention the (now admitted) fact that Josephgallos is in fact commerically paid SEO consultant to the subject of this article. I have advised Josephgallos of our rules re WP:BIAS, and asked for a discussion of the issues, but am continually faced with non-engagement. Given that in the last 24hrs I have placed a vandal3 tag on his talk page, and a WP:BIAS notice on the article - the latter of which was reveresed - I am disapointingly now forced to request adinistrator intervention. The core problem here is that Josephgallos appears not to understand the difference between bias/avertorial and encyclopedic. Your quick intervention and input would be most appreciated - Thank You! Rgds,--Trident13 (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Trident13, I noticed that you twice removed the Good Article tag on Cad and the Dandy without the article being delisted. I also don't think the vandal tag was appropriate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! My mistake on the GA, but in light of the admitted bias/lack of engagement plus revert of my addition of the BIAS tag, I hope that you can understand the choice. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Trident13, you need to file a Wikipedia:Good article reassessment if you want the page to be delisted from GA. Epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I am appealing to the administrators to review this matter seriously. User:Trident13 has been trying to delete important verifiable content referenced with reliable published sources without valid reasons. User:Trident13 also engaged in a questionable practice to edit the content in question so it looks like they are inconsistent before deleting them altogether thus appearing in the history section like he deleted an inconsistent content. This is a deliberate manipulation attempt suggesting bias on his side. He is accusing me of vandalism citing content which I answered with supporting published sources. When he cannot provide valid reasons for deletion, he proceeded to attacking me and using WP:BIAS as an excuse to his Wikipedia:Blanking Vandalism. For the record, I did not create the Cad and the Dandy article. But information that is true, verifiable, and facts deserved to be included in the encyclopedia, thus I reverted back the content deleted by User:Trident13.

I have reasons to believe that User:Trident13 is biased for a few reasons:

1) User:Trident13 is the author of Chester Barrie article. Chester Barrie is a direct competitor of Cad & the Dandy

2) Just prior to accusations of vandalism by Trident13, I undid a revision from an unlogged user (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cad_and_the_Dandy&diff=589712653&oldid=588460890).

3) User:Trident13 on several occasions has been replacing the "good article" tag of the Cad & the Dandy article with advert tag since 2012 without any reason at all. example is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cad_and_the_Dandy&diff=506077052&oldid=488408319

--Josephgallos

I have made it clear on the articles talkpage, I have no commercial association with the clothing industry, and was/have never been paid or asked to create an article for Chester Barrie. Yes I created it, but that was because it was mentioned on the Savile Row article which I had heavily editted, and I found it worthy of inclusion passing WP:NOTAB (I have also never bought suits from either establishment, or Savile Row). I also don't at present want to add to the current hot-pot which is the edits of Josephgallos by asking for review of GA status for the Cad and the Dandy. Simply put (again) I just want text to reflect encyclopedic content, not the SEO advertorial which Josephgallos has admitted on both the articles talkpage and his own user page (see edit record) been paid to insert. Rgds --Trident13 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You don't want to go through GAR but you want to come to ANI? That seems odd (I know ANI is a shorter process, but...). Anyway, I think this is another boomerang situation. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It should probably be reviewed anyway, as its GA quality is questionable. Epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You may be right, but if so that's largely due to Trident13 decimating the article in a single edit [8] with the single explanation of 'removing advert-text'.--Korruski^Talk 15:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Just how clear an indication of paid editing by a commercial "SEO consultant" do we need here? Whatever editors might think of how Trident13 has acted in some ways, there is a very obvious promotional COI issue that deserves examination. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Holdek-5

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

---

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

---

Holdek (talk · contribs) found a new entertainment. This time they start to add stub templates to a start-class article and edit-war over my removal of these templates [9]. Last time they were blocked for a month for destructive editing. I am afraid time has come for an indefinite block, given that their contribution to Wikipedia is net negative.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that this editor is disruptive. Whether it is for entertainment or lack of competence is uncertain. This speedy deletion nomination is cause for concern. Some sort of block seems necessary, at least until this user can be reined in.- MrX 16:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Re. the SD, it's probably a rival company. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I do think the editor is disruptive and net negative, but I do not think they are a COI editor or smth. Most of their activity is to delete paragraphs from random articles which have {{cn}} templates. I never noticed any specific interest to companies.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia: Assume good faith. Holdek (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Good faith can only be assumed when the facts are not clear. here, the facts are available for all and sundry to see. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Holdek (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) To be fair, concerning the speedy deletion nom that MrX pointed out, that article does deserve to be deleted, as explained here. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Scratch that; the article has greatly improved since the AfD began. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Holdek, when I said the facts are there for all to see, I was referring to your semi disruptive behaviour. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think he actually knew that, and was being ironic _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Holdek (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Note:The following thread got split from this and misplaced under the edit warring discussion below. Since it's clear that several editors want to continue this thread, I'm moving it back here to let it continue and allow the edit warring thread to continue separately. Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

May we please return to Holdek? Concerning this accident, they believe that it was ok for them to edit-war.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Holdek's edits were reverted, with a message that the content was in fact sourced. He was invited to bring his concerns to the talk page, but instead you chose to serially revert. If there are BLP concerns over the sourced data, those should be discussed on the talk page. Edit warring over sourced material, while claiming it is unsourced is disruptive. aprock (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a very typical Holdek behavior. In the article which started this thread, Zvenigora, initially they merged it into the article on the film producer, Alexander Dovzhenko, with the comment that it was unsourced and therefore not notable. I had no particular interest in that article, but I knew that the film is considered notable and is prominently featured in the books about Dovzhenko. Fine, I spent a day of my time, digged out the sources and has written a start-class perfectly sourced article. Then Holdek added three stub-templates there: Wikiprojects film, Ukraine, and Soviet Union. I explained them that I am in fact an active participant of Wikiprojects Ukraine and Soviet Union, and can rate the article. They shut up for half a year, but yesterday they returned and re-added the templates citing the fact that I am not listed at the pages of those projects as a participant. (As a matter of principle, I am not listed in any of the Wiki-project as a participant; my activity in Wikiproject:Ukraine can be easily checked at the talk page of the project). When I removed those they readded the templates without a comment, thereby starting an edit war. Unfortunately Holdek just do not hear what others say, and they have their own interpretation of the policies which is often different from the policies themselves, and they defend this interpretation until they get blocked for disruptive behavior. Last time they got blocked for a month for adding {{cn}} templates to figure captions and subsequently removing images as unsourced. I am actually surprised that we are still discussing their behavior. Given their block log, their refusal to start editing constructively, their lack of positive contribution, and their lack of clue, they should have been blocked on the spot.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your representation of both my Zvenigora edits and the reason for my previous block. Post links your accusations. Holdek (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sourced every single statement. Concerning your block log, everybody can easily check that.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that Ymblanter's edit summary for his revert was "this is not your business in which projects I list myself." Holdek (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed no business of yours. It is absolutely irrelevant in the context of the quality of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that my edit summary when I replaced the stub templates was "Replacing stub tags pending official quality reassessments; article has been submitted in each category." Holdek (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

So who would do that "official" reassessment? Toddst1 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Members of the corresponding projects (Wikipedia: WikiProject Soviet Union/Assessment#Frequently ask questions, Wikipedia :WikiProject Ukraine/Assessment#Frequently asked questions. Holdek (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And here is a link to my merger proposal: [[Talk:Alexander_Dovzhenko#Merger_Proposal|Talk:Alexander Dovzhenko#Merger

Edit warring

Significant edit warring on List of most-listened-to radio programs since Jan 9 by Holdek (talk · contribs), MrX (talk · contribs), and Aprock (talk · contribs). All warned. Toddst1 (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Holy overreaction Batman! Why in the world did you deem it necessary to warn me on my talk page and add to the drama here because of my one, single revert?!- MrX 15:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It is extremely significant and an appropriate warning if there is any semblance of tag-teaming ES&L 16:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Your one revert is relatively insignificant in that 7-revert (so far) edit war. However, jumping in the middle of an edit war as an additional partisan is still edit warring. All parties were noticed after I un-protected the page. Toddst1 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Reverting a bad edit one time is never edit warring.- MrX 16:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It is edit warring when there are 6 other reverts around it. You seriously misunderstand what edit warring is and what it's not. From WP:EW, "it is no defense to say 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring'." Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Your talk page discussion (which you closed) seems like an unreasonable response for my very reasonable request, especially for an admin. You made a false statement about my behavior and I simple asked you to retract it. I also resent your claim that I "misunderstand what edit warring is and what it's not". - MrX 18:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@EatsShootsAndLeaves: I am astutely aware of the policy. The part of the policy that you quoted has nothing to do with this. Pure and simply, edit warring requires repeated reverts. One revert is never edit warring. If you wish it to be otherwise, propose it at a policy page and gain consensus from the community.- MrX 18:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe my reverts fall under exception 7 referenced in the warning since I am removing unsourced contentious BLP content about ratings for shows centered around living persons, and these shows are named after them. Holdek (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That is a pathetic attempt to WP:GAME that rule. I recommend both of you stop digging. Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

While you can clarify whether or not the reverts are appropriate, you shouldn't assume bad faith in my motives. Holdek (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

After what we've see you do in the last few days, Good faith is the last thing I'd expect to be assumed about you. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:34, 20 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.

Coda

Just a note here before this goes into the archives: Holdek is indef blocked now with talk page and email access disabled for repeated personal attacks against multiple admins and for recruiting editors by email to proxy edit for him while he is blocked. Furthermore, it seems Holdek slipped and revealed that he was one and the same editor as User:68.50.128.91 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who apparently harbored a year-long (or longer) grudge against Ymblanter, a connection that probably explains why Holdek targeted certain articles edited by Ymblanter. See this for several old ANI discussions involving the IP. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• The removal of e-mail access was based on a misunderstanding, and access has been restored. Holdek hadn't been recruiting editors by email to proxy edit for him.[10] Bishonen | talk 16:45, 22 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.

American Academy of Financial Management

Admin involvement needed. Cited content are removed under the pretext that I have COI in regard to the AAFM.EconomicTiger (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is this at AN/I? First, this is a content dispute. Second, the editor never came to me to discuss this after I posted a suggestion on their talk page that that might have a COI. Is that the way things work now? A talk page comment leads directly to an AN/I posting, without the benefit of discussion on the article talk page?

In any case, this appears to be another incarnation of the editor connected to the AAFM who periodically comes by to try to whitewash the article in favor of that organization. You might remember that after the last incident, the AAFM issued some sort of bogus legal threat (in a press release) naming certain editors, including myself, and basically telling us we had to cease and desist or face legal action. (Legal threat thread is here, incident previous to that is here)

I don't know if User:EconomicTiger is connected to User:Doctorlaw, the puppet master behind the previous AAFM-whitewashers, but regardless of whether they are connected, ET seems to be doing their best to pump up the organization, and tone down any criticism. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a neutral pointer to this report on the article's talk page, and likewise on the talk pages of all the editors who participated in the previous discussion about AAFM. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, you are not professional by putting something on my page and then claiming it is on the article's talk page. That professionalism shows why a naive institution about Wikipedia would be forced to take legal action against Wikipedia. Because of a few editors like you, the entire project is compromised. Removing content cited from WP:RS needs Administrative Action, not the Dispute Resolution Initiative. If an experienced Wikipedia Editor like me could get frustrated, why the concerned institution won't go for a legal action against Wikipedia? AAFM is not the first institution, there are number of individuals and institutions personally told me they want to take legal against Wikipedia since my association with Wikipedia which started in 2007.EconomicTiger (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I launched a sock investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doctorlaw. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It is good that you launched CU investigation since I can't launch a one for me.EconomicTiger (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

RJC, Can you explain on which basis you added this tag on my Talk Page. Try this next time on a Blog.EconomicTiger (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• You all seem to have matters in hand. I'm unwilling to block the Tiger right now; let's see what CU comes up with. Tiger, if you revert again you will be blocked. You may use the talk page if you like. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Drimies, I am nothing to do with Doctorlaw. And this is not the first time I visited ANI. Once CU is over, I am expecting your Admin intervention on the article since removing cited content is violation.EconomicTiger (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Violation of what? Cited content can easily be removed for a wide variety of reasons. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Then it should be explained with valid reason on the Talk Page. Otherwise it is a Violation. The Wikipedia Project is built based on Content from Sources which meet WP:RS. We can't shake the foundation for a wide variety of reasons.EconomicTiger (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No, this is simply not correct, since it's too simple. There is talk page conversation right now, and whatever it is that you want is not gaining traction. Let me inform you also that this wikilawyering of yours is disruptive as well--and thus blockable. As a sidenote, it is my opinion that Beyond8 is simply a troll: their statements (especially those in regard to BMK) on the article talk page are unacceptable. Now that is a simple matter. Drmies (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, ho, back at AN/I again. EconomicTiger seems very familiar - in particular, they've had not many edits since they tried much the same whitewash on the same page in 2012, and they are surely coming close to the bone on WP:LEGAL.

Most of their other edits seem to be on puff pieces and removing notability or other improvement tags from articles which have not in fact been improved. NOTHERE? Pinkbeast (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I had a break for different reasons on Wikipedia. I have edited since 2007 and my contributions towards AAFM is less than even 1%. Check my First 500 Contributions. You are following articles which I have edited and coming out with NOTHERE. I have contributed much more than you to enhance this project. I am not part of the legal suit against Wikipedia. But you should remember Wikipedia doesn't have any special US legislation or a UN Charter to cover it under legal immunity. But the AGF of Wikipedia Editors can protect the project over any threats.EconomicTiger (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact about 6-7% of your contribs are related to the AAFM, which is unremarkable when one considers that those are the first 500 of 600 or so, and that last 100-odd are mostly AAFM-related (and the rest are on a series of puff pieces). Pinkbeast (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And a brand-new editor pops up, User:Beyond8, and makes a comment on Talk;AAFM as their very first edit.

I'm adding them to the sock report. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have requested the CU here to check whether User:Beyond My Ken and User:Pinkbeast are sock puppeting; the timing of their edits here and here deems to think so.EconomicTiger (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

BMK makes an edit. BMK reverts it; I revert that, restoring BMK's original edit, because I felt they had made a mistake. Why on earth would anyone use a sock puppet to disagree with themselves?

As to the timing, it's almost as if Wikipedia has a facility that emails you when a page changes, allowing quick responses, isn't it? Pinkbeast (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Could be an incredibly complicated ruse to throw suspicion off our socking by acting as little like socks as possible, kind of a variation on the good hand/bad hand strategy. BMK (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Though I may agree with your explanation on timing; your first explanation, "BMK makes an edit. BMK reverts it; I revert that....", senses me that why it can't be a drama created either without any purpose or with the purpose of justifying the BMK's initial edit. User:SummerPhD's explanation here by showing the Editor Interaction Analyzis is not convincing me why both can't be the same person. I request another editor/administrator to look into and create if possible a sockpuppetry case since I am not much familiar with it.EconomicTiger (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said in the link you provided, if you believe there is sockpuppetry, open a sock case. It's not that it could not be the same editor, it's that there is no reason to believe it is. I think you're wasting your time. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

They only have a handful of edits on the same pages. And they are pages that are usually edited by all active editors: noticeboards, requests to administrators, etc. This evidence would not be accepted as proof of socking. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Enric Naval, since you have accepted that you have edited AAFM and SummerPhD also involved with AAFM, you both should not come for the defense of other editors who too involved with AAFM. Otherwise, it will be considered you all are MeatPuppets. There are enough editors/administrators looking at this thread, let them get involved and come out with their opinion.EconomicTiger (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Much as various socks involved have failed to understand what WP:COI means (as has the AAFM), you don't seem to understand what WP:MEAT means (or WP:COI for that matter). No one invited me to this discussion. If you believe I am a meatpuppet, opening a sockpuppetry case would be appropriate. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Beyond8 indef blocked, EconomicTiger not a sock of Doctorlaw (Globalprofessor), but to be given a warning for disruption. I believe this can be closed now. BMK (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102) and Croatia in the union with Hungary

Can someone look into these articles and the ensuing charade there created by DIREKTOR. This guy is out of control. He behaves as if he is the owner of these pages, deletes the sourced content and entire paragraphs if they don't suit his own personal views. Edit-warring, personal attacks, refusal to reach a consensus....you name it.

I've tried to reason with this person on the talk pages (including my own [11] but he always pushes and turns the discussion into a pissing contest and mere squabble without any meaningful purpose other than to impose his own view. This is not the first time I've seen him do it and I am not the first person he did it to.

You can see him edit-warring and removing huge chunks of the article lead and numerous sources for no apparent explanation, discussion or reason: [12], [13], [14]. If you look at his earlier behavior on this article you will see he was involved in numerous revert-wars in which I unfortunately also took part recently as I was stupid enough to be drawn into it as opposed to just immediately report him. Just look at the explanation given on this edit: [15].

Personal attacks on talk page: Directed at User:Tzowu [16] [17], directed at me [18] [19].

The dispute on Croatia in the union with Hungary is mainly a spill off from the other article and you can see him reverting without any explanation there as well: [20], [21], [22], [23].

Now unless I am wrong his behavior is clear example of WP:DE in general. Clear examples of WP:TEND, WP:V, WP:CONS, WP:PA, WP:CIV, WP:OWN and WP:IDHT. And I am sure WP:ARBMAC would have some say in this matter as well. Shokatz (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems that DIREKTOR was blocked several times before for the same fault (edit warring): [24]. User:Shokatz was also blocked once for edit warring. 86.127.27.244 (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Not much to say. The user is relatively new, is strongly in favor of a Croatian national point of view, and will not be dissuaded from his conviction that nobody can revert him simply because he has listed some source or other. His edit is, in fact, not in accordance with the position of scholarship (as has been demonstrated to him repeatedly). In my seven years of experience and 50,000 edits on these obscure Balkans articles, there never was, and is not, a whole lot to do in this sort of situation besides edit-war. That is, if the article is to be somehow wrenched back to a semblance of source-based reality, as opposed to some Croatian/Serbian/Bosnian/Albanian national POV or other. All that said, I do not necessarily aspire to elicit some kind of special treatment, and if sanctions are deemed necessary I understand completely. -- Director (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

After 50,000 edits you should know that edit warring does not ever solve the disputes. 86.127.27.244 (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, it often does.. people wouldn't do it otherwise. Sometimes, in fact, its very effective: just gather with your pals and edit-war into the ground any users who object to your unsourced-nonsense version. If any DR is forced on you, just claim "no consensus".. goodness knows I saw it a million times. And on these sort of obscure, complex issues on unknown abandoned articles there is no recourse but revert-warring in 99 cases out of a hundred. Believe me, I wish there was. I left that article for a few months, and just now when I returned, you had an entirely fictional coat of arms, fictional coronations, fictional Croatian names for the polity, a fictional legislature, legendary events related as historical fact, fake historical dates - just to start you off.

Hope I'm not being forward but, who are you again? -- Director (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

My "friend" it was you who came to that article, made changes without any consensus, discussion and necessary sources for the changes you made, and then you proceeded to claim your version is the consensus when there is clear disagreement to what you are doing by at least one other user beside me. It is what I have seen you do on several other occasions on several different articles. Others have pointed out to your modus operandi before, like here f.e. [25]. The fact you have been seven years on Wikipedia and have over 50,000 edits should have been more than enough for you to learn you cannot impose your views and assertions. You have deliberately deleted entire sections with almost two dozens scholarly sources and imposed a minority view which is in fact clear WP:DE and WP:FRINGE according to Wikipedia policies. Accusing me of being some bigoted nationalist is just another of your scheming methods of discrediting and reverting people from the real issues. I have provided numerous sources, tried to discuss the issue with you on talk pages despite no sign of you accepting and listening anyone but yourself. And BTW, if I am not mistaken, you are not the one who will say what one can or cannot publish on Wikipedia - [26]. Shokatz (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to squabble over a content dispute here, Shokatz. You're the one being rolled back from introducing a disputed edit, not I. -- Director (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really, I've actually restored the lead (which you deleted for no valid reason) and slightly improved it (by adding more sources), the lead itself derives from the content which is already in the article. Stick to the facts for once, ok? Shokatz (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Fully protected both pages for a week while you both discuss this on a talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems as if we're always seeing ANI threads about DIREKTOR being the bad guy, but aside from one edit-warring incident in early 2012 and one mistaken block (unblock rationale was "Oops, wrong user"), the last sanctions on DIREKTOR were in 2011. Meanwhile, WP:ARBMAC has a massive history of blocks and other sanctions being levied on people since that time. Is it more likely that DIREKTOR's detractors are telling the truth, or is it more likely that DIREKTOR is following our policies in a contentious area and being attacked by people who want to tilt these articles in their own way? The latter seems much more likely, especially since DIREKTOR has been blocked in the past for ARBMAC violations: it seems to me as if he's learned his lesson from the previous blocks and is now being quite careful to heed our standards. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend please go and take a look at the talk pages and the earlier versions of the articles and tell me if that is according to Wikipedia policies. I don't think he, as you say, learned his lesson, since he deleted entire sections which were heavily sourced with over a dozen sources...all from Hungarian or third party sources. His rationale was they were POV Croatian sources. He also refused consensus and discussion and wrote I will revert it no matter what anyone says and that is that. Not to mention his uncivil and condescending tone he has in his edits and talk-page, calling people nationalist, noobs, etc. This is no mere content dispute, this is DIREKTOR abusing Wikipedia policies and bullying his POV into the articles. The fact someone like you would give him credence like this, only encourages him to continue to do it. Shokatz (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe he just gets too riled up. Quoting from [27]: "Your Croatian-nationalist POV will be reverted every time without fail (until you present sources that discuss the dispute and indicate a consensus or prevalence of the view you peddle)." (Emphasis in original.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, to be perfectly objective, I would say I follow policies in a very difficult area, but can often get riled up with (what I perceive as) particularly brazen edit-warring and nationalist POV-pushing. I have to admit, both of those things are probably accurate.

Basically the problem is a mix of unfortunate circumstances. These are small countries, with relatively few English speakers. And then of these English speakers, that do edit on Wiki, only a small number will be here not to try to promote/defend their own country on the numerous contentious issues - this being a recent war zone of ethnic conflict.

In fact, the current issue is a pretty good example. During the war in Croatia, the propaganda was laying it on pretty thick, not only in the media, but in the public school history classroom (as could perhaps be expected in times of war). Young Croatian people who edit Wikipedia therefore believe as a matter of fact that Croatia belonged to a country called "Croatia-Hungary" between 1102 and 1527, which is a term completely unused in any historiography anywhere, and anyone who tries to cast doubt on that version of events is attacking the country for whose independence your parents shed sweat and blood 20 years ago (to put it dramatically). I believe Miroslav Krleza said it best:

"From Frankish times forward, Croatia was never the Croat-centered entity imagined by our patriotic historians. It was always too small to form an independent political entity and too weak to resist foreign domination. Instead of acknowledging this past, the Croats have created a phantom past and imaginary rights originating in nine hundred years of defeats, domination and exploitation."

I myself am rather sick of such nonsense, I admit, and it gets me easily riled up. What I said on that talkpage I will repeat here: all I'm tryiing to do is to have that article over there be a place where people can read the hard sourced facts about this period of history. Unmuddied by propaganda or national myth. -- Director (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Accept that Wikipedia will always be full of crap and you'll sleep a lot better. In fact this is the standard approach at AE now: let POV pushers duke it out with each other and hope NPOV articles result. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

...all I'm tryiing to do is to have that article over there be a place where people can read the hard sourced facts - does that includes deleting entire paragraphs with over a dozen sources, mainly English or Hungarian, and then saying they are Croatian POV sources? Does that includes edit-warring to enforce a minority view? Does that includes condescending to people on talk pages and making ad hominem remarks about them? Does that includes refusing consensus and saying you will revert whatever someone posts that does not suit your own view, no matter how well sourced? If f.e. I did all what you did on that article, I suspect my account would have been banned immediately on the spot. But no, you have 50k edits, you are on Wikipedia for seven years and you are obviously well connected so I guess this all counts for nothing. Shokatz (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocks of MrX and Sportfan5000 on Duck Dynasty

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

---

There are, as you may know, major problems on a number of homosexuality-related articles with repeated sockpuppetry and use of alternate accounts. This article is one of them. Today, an addition was made to the article and reverted three times by SPA account Perusteltu (talk · contribs). These additions were reverted twice by MrX (talk · contribs) and three times by Sportfan5000 (talk · contribs) (five reverts were made because Collect (talk · contribs) reverted once on the side of the SPA account). This article, and especially the SPLC-related information which was involved, was previously a favourite of now-blocked sockpuppet Roccodrift (talk · contribs). This edit by Perusteltu shows all the hallmarks of Belchfire/Roccodrift.

Admin Toddst1 (talk · contribs) has blocked both MrX and Sportfan5000 for 24 hours for two and three reverts each, but has not blocked the instigator, Perusteltu, at all. This is a quite ridiculous sequence of events and I propose to undo these blocks unless there is consensus not to do so here. I will inform all parties, but obviously the two blocked editors cannot comment here. I note that MrX has suggested that they are going to leave Wikipedia over this issue. Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Support departure if the editor cannot find anything constructive to do on Wikipedia that does not involve edit-warring on duck dynasties. Per WP:DIVA, even though it's only an essay. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Not helpful. I'm asking why editors (who are constructive Wikipedia editors in general) on one side of an edit-war who have reverted twice and three times have been blocked, whilst the editor on the other side (also three reverts, and a SPA) has not. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's an awful thing to say, Demiurge, and you should really rethink it. If nothing else, the briefest of glances at their contribs shows that they do a deal more than edit-warring on Duck Dynasty.

For the rest, I agree that it's concerning, but perhaps we should talk about this with Toddst1 first? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Mmmmm I was just thinking that too. I can't see that BK has discussed this with Toddst1. Maybe I missed it? Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite. There seems to be a rush to an ultimatum here ("I propose to undo these blocks") instead. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought that this was a better place to discuss it given the wider issues with these articles. And frankly such a controversial sequence of blocks should have been brought here anyway. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the history of socks on Duck Dynasty but I saw that User:Perusteltu hadn't reverted after being warned. However if you look above in the Holdek section, MrX was involved in another tag-team edit war yesterday and completely rejected the warnings. I think BK and the others are aware that it isn't the number of edits that an editor makes, it's the back and forth reversions that make an edit war. There were quite a few here and clearly a multi-party edit war which shouldn't be controversial. If you think otherwise, then you need to review WP:EW.Toddst1 (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• On that basis, MrX and Sportfan5000 received no warnings at all (yes, I know they shouldn't need them, but if you;re going to make the point, let's be consistent). You can't block someone for making two reverts in an edit-war and not block someone on the other side for making three in the same edit-war. To do so leaves yourself open to accusations of bias. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

BK, maybe you should calm down and investigate a little more. MRX was both warned yesterday and rejected it on ANI above and SF5k has been blocked for edit warring very recently. I just explained to you why I didn't block the guy you disagree with.

If sockpuppetry was the issue, then the editor should have been tagged and the reversions should have inidicated such Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Full protection of the article would have been the better option, by far. The failure to act against the Belchfire/Roccodrift sock was a grave error. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Grave Error??? Now that's a little dramatic. Time for a visit to the tea house to come back to reality172.56.10.79 (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your last statement. Failure to identify that editor as a sock and instead, engage in a protracted 4-party edit war was a grave error which resulted in proper blocks. Now, is someone going to open an SPI on the sock or are you going to keep bitching about your buddies being blocked for edit warring? Toddst1 (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

An investigation of the article history would have shown the persistent issues with SPAs and socks on this article. MrX even used the talk page on the issue - the SPA didn't, simply carried on reverting. I'd suggest at least that (a) we are consistent and block the other editor for the same time, or preferably (b) undo the blocks and protect the article. Black Kite (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You're really missing it. If User:Perusteltu is a sock, s/he should be blocked as such. If not, they s/he didn't revert after the warning and SHOULD NOT be blocked. Try applying some logic here. Toddst1 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, BK, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't change my comments[28]. Not consulting me before running off to ANI and labeling my action as "ridiculous" was bad, assuming bad faith on my part is worse but you really need to not change my words. Toddst1 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That was an edit-conflict glitch. I wouldn't do such a thing. I've put it back. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So it's considered assuming bad faith bringing a questionable action to ANI but it's not assuming bad faith accusing someone of intentionally changing your comment when the removal was a clear edit-conflict gone wrong? Add in the fact that you made a personal attack in the removed text and you should frankly thank BK for removing it. Gloss • talk 00:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I disagree and trust that no admin will wheel war on the block. In addition to Sportfan5000, there is also the multiple "Phil Robertson" articles where they also act in concert with User:Ronjohn who did the interesting edit at [29] comparable to Sportfan's edit at [30]. Yes there are problems -- but the blocks were proper IMO. The main problem is POV warriors who do not wish to abide by WP:BLP however. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × many)Clearly bogus blocks, and Toddst1's warning yesterday was not consistent with policy. Despite Toddst's suggestion to change it today [31] -- reading the whole policy -- specifically WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, which says "Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; (emphasis mine) makes it clear it's not generally accepted a single revert is edit warring. (Mr. X did fail to heed the entire advice of the section in that they did not use the talk page).NE Ent 00:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

What's meant by "multiple Phil Robertson articles"? We have one, and its lack of a hatnote suggests to me that we don't have any others. I looked for duplicates under Phil Alexander Robertson and Phil A. Robertson, but neither of those even exists as a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing they mean Phil Robertson GQ interview controversy which is an obvous fork and about to get deleted. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"They" is I. And my "revert" was on the basis that WP:POV railroad (the reason Sportfan5000 gave in his edit summary) is not a valid reason for deletion of material that I can find. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• My analysis: Blocks for Sportfan5000 and Perusteltu, but not MrX: I think protection would have been a better option, but barring that, the block of Sportfan5000 was warranted, in my opinion, but not the block on MrX. I think Perusteltu should have been blocked as well, as they are the very definition of a single-purpose POV account, and were edit warring as much as the rest. (I also have my doubts on them being a new user.) If I had my way, MrX would be unblocked with a summary of "per consensus at AN/I" and Perusteltu would get a very stern warning. Of course, if I really got my way we would also nuke the metastasized Duck Dynasty controversy, but I don't think such a cure is possible.

  A bit of evidence for why I think MrX should be unblocked: First, they only performed two reverts, and they apologized for this revert with a dummy edit (since they had been reverted so quickly). Also, MrX had WP:BRD on his side. Also, MrX is the one who started the discussion on the talk page, which only one other user so far (Collect) has participated in. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think protection should really have been the only way forward here. As Toddst1 admits himself, this was a "4-way edit war", but only the two editors on one side of it were blocked (note that I'm not suggesting Collect should have been blocked, merely pointing Toddst1's analysis out). But then, as he says, I'm simply "bitching about my buddies being blocked for edit warring", despite the fact I don't think I've interacted with Sportfan5000 in my editing career. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with you that protection would have been better...but that's just me. I can think of other admins who probably would have just blocked everybody. Since that is no longer an option, I think the best trajectory forward would be to unblock MrX as I suggested above and move on. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  Note: after reading some of the comments below I should probably add that I understand the reasoning of Toddst1 and believe they were acting in good faith, though I disagreed with their actions in this case. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Recommend as best way to move forward would be unblocking all editors on extension of good faith as there is little reason to sustain the blocks. This would be the most peaceful way. If the edit warring recommences then full protect the article.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• I think the most reasonable upfront options would have been full protection, or blocking all three accounts. I don't think that blocking two out of the three parties involved in a multilateral edit war is an ideal approach. It's a bit late for that now, of course, but for future reference. I'm a bit skeptical about blocking an experienced editor for reverting twice, especially when that editor appeared to be dealing with a single-purpose agenda account—that seems to me to stretch the spirit of policy a bit thin. Maybe just unblock them all and keep an eye on the article? Oh, and Perusteltu (talk · contribs) seems to think it's OK to write things like "To destroy America's culture, (Communists) planned to use the homosexual movement to undermine religion and morality" in Wikipedia's voice. Someone should probably help educate him/her as to our content policies. Not it. MastCell ^Talk 00:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• I personally think to the least, MrX should be unblocked. He is a cool headed editor who was actually following WP:BRD at the article and also made less than three reverts. I'm not sure about the other two editors statuses, but full protection would've been the most ideal next step and having blocking Sportfan5000 and Perusteltu would be a second choice if behavior continues after protection. I'm not going to go too deep into it, but I will mention that I feel that some admins tend to pull the trigger too quickly on situations like these. Just a thought. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: "cool headed editor", I was looking over Perusteltu's talk page and I saw this edit by MrX. In a topic area where the norm is to slap ideological opponents with the ugliest highest-level templates possible, I found that personalized word of caution and invitation to the talk page quite refreshing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Bad block on MrX, should be overturned. I'll just echo what Mastcell said above, "blocking an experienced editor for reverting twice, especially when that editor appeared to be dealing with a single-purpose agenda account—that seems to me to stretch the spirit of policy a bit thin". Blocking Sportsfan seems like an overreaction as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Unblock MrX as per evidence by Adjwilley that MrX attempted to engage in efforts to quell the edit war: apologizing for a hasty revert and initiating discussion are behaviors we ought to be encouraging. Jumping into an ongoing edit war with a revert or two of one's own was certainly a mistake, but subsequent actions show that MrX got out of the bad mindset and into a better one without needing to be coerced, and so there's no preventative value in maintaining the block. I do not have a strong opinion about the block/unblock state of the other participants in the edit war, but agree with others above that protecting the page would have been a better course of action for Toddst1 to have taken. alanyst 03:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Unblock MrX per much of the above, and with no negative judgement on Toddst1. He did what he thought was right in the situation; it may not be what others would have done but it wasn't grossly out of proportion. N^oformation ^Talk 03:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Unblock the editors and lock the article. Toddst1's actions were well-intentioned, but it was the wrong approach to block productive editors while leaving a sock untouched. Article protection is the best way to deal with these sorts of multiparty conflicts. I'm also troubled by Toddst1's hostile reaction to criticism of his actions. Gamaliel (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

People tend not to react well to criticism when they feel attacked (rightly or wrongly), and especially when they were just doing their job, or so to speak. This is why it's important to attempt to maintain a civil and collegial atmosphere. N^oformation ^Talk 05:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's important that editors who disagree with this matter criticize Toddst1's actions and not Toddst1 himself. Gamaliel (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Bad block-Unblock - It's very bad precedent to block long time editors who have not violated 3RR when they are undoing SPA edits by banned Sock puppets. Not to jump on Todd's reasoning too much, but if the other editors should have noted in their edit summaries the user was a banned sock, perhaps you should have investigated a bit more before blocking too. I mean, if you expect more from editors, should you not expect at least as much from yourself? Dave Dial (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Bad block and fails WP:ADMINACCT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Nothing wrong with block, but I'll expect unblock to be wise MrX was kind enough to express his partial understanding of edit-warring just a few days ago, and it was clarified to him quite clearly that he needs to read the entire policy before acting. As such, he know what is edit warring, and has therefore been appropriately warned. However, I believe that MrX is quite aware now that we're serious about that policy, and that the policy must be interpreted in toto - he's typically a good content creator, even if he misunderstands policies - misunderstanding is not an permanent offense, I hope. Indeed, I hope MrX in the long term realizes that a lot of people do try to help him to correct his misunderstandings ES&L 09:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Unblock per Black Kite - the unbalanced nature of the action taken is concerning, not to mention the response to criticism. Neljack (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You were right, I was wrong

I didn't realize MrX was "one of us" and wasn't subject to the rules we impose on those outsiders. Maybe one of you righteous admins should unblock him/her. Toddst1 (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hum....I disagree with MrX about 90 percent of the time but concur with the majority above and feel the block was a poor call. You admin people need to do page protections...blocks stay on a record forever on this website...they can't be expunged.--MONGO 05:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's always difficult to be criticized, but you are not handling this well. You should probably take a break from this matter while your temper cools. If you live in the Americas, let it rest until the morning, otherwise just walk away for now. Gamaliel (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think it's a little too late to unblock MrX... :/ Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Toddst1, you're indeed wrong in that MrX is not "one of us" anymore, assuming his retirement isn't temporary. Maybe you shouldn't be one of us anymore either, or at least not one of the admins given that you've just "improved" Wikipedia by trading a long-term editor for a SPA who is also a probable sock. Your argument above that Perusteltu stopped after being warned is a little silly given that MrX warned him. Who warned MrX though? Nobody, it seems... And MrX definitely didn't edit war after he gave the warning to Perusteltu. So you basically blocked MrX for... not warning himself before stopping?! Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

MrX had no block history and nearly 40k edits. semi-protection would have stopped any disruptive edit war if one existed. He was blocked for 2RR over 2 days? I found it even hard to find his reverts because of the amount of edits he made between reverts. It was a poor decision to block, especially without warning and after he tried to get the SPA/sock to stop, and your response to feedback has been worse. --DHeyward (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I've seen this administrator drive away an editor. See User talk:Carobu#January 2014 - after Carobu made good faith edits ([32] [33] [34]) to update the numbers of an infobox based on the information within the article, Toddst1 proceeded to warn the user on their talk page using template messages which suggested Carobu could/should be blocked for their edits, as if they were some kind of malicious or bad-faith edits. He made no effort to apologize or even talk to the user. I'm noticing a theme with this administrator's hasty actions and unwillingness to discuss anything before they take such actions. Gloss • talk 07:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes Toddst1, you were wrong on several levels. Your block was inappropriate and unskilful. You should have then had the nous to recognise you acted inappropriately, the courage to undo your bad block, and the decency to apologize to the injured party. Administrators should not be jerking content builders around like this (but they do on Wikipedia, don't they). --Epipelagic (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No they don't. No admin will admit they're wrong on here, despite the overwhelming evidence stacking up against this Todd character. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have unblocked MrX following the consensus here. I don't see a consensus yet for unblocking Sportfan5000, so I haven't changed anything there. Fram (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Simultaneously and independently, I just full protected the article for 3 days. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I have filed the needful SPI. The duck test is not clearly obvious to me, though there is similar behavior. However, a number of individuals are above presuming it is him, and acting like they'd be inclined to block based on similarity; in this case an SPI is necessary to disambiguate innocent persons with similar beliefs from possible additional socks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The test came back negative, AFAICT. Collect (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there more to this than a bad block? It appears MrX and Toddst1 have recently clashed (see #Holdek-5 above and User talk:Toddst1#Edit warring accusation), and there is obviously a problem with how Toddst1 handles criticism. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the SPI, I agree it's needed. The block of MrX was pretty clearly a bad block and may have cost us a good editor. If there had been a previous clash then this looks even worse. The section heading Toddst1 has added is inexcusable and I support Johnuniq's comment about Toddst1's difficulties in handling criticism. We Admins need to set a higher standard of behavior. Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

H'mmm Toddst1 seems to have quietly left the field. Why's that? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

H'mmm Toddst1 sleeps and has a family. It's morning here in North America now and I'm back on line for a while. Toddst1 (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you guys had even read the most basic facts on this issue before leaping to your conclusions, you would have seen - as I pointed out above (twice in this thread!) that the "previous clash" as you so eloquently put it was that I warned MrX two days ago for tag-team edit warring with Holdek - and discussed it here on ANI - before blocking him yesterday for exactly that - tag-team edit warring. I'll take the criticism. I'd just like the people dishing it out to do their homework first as Mr. Weller and others have demonstrated that they didnt! Toddst1 (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I get that MrX has been a good contributor and quite a few folks believe that a double standard should apply with him. (If you don't think that's true, then go back and re-read all the comments about "judgement" and "good editor") Fine. I also understand that edit warring has many interpretations and to than end, before this fiasco started on ANI, I posted on Talk:EW that this area (multi-party edit wars) needs to be more clearly called out because good editors like MrX get caught up in it.

I also get that my late-night post last night pointing out the double standard here was pretty snarky. Yes, I was and am frustrated.

Was my block of MrX bad? Well, as far as I can tell, it was within policy, but appears to be outside of culture. I've issued over ten thousand blocks and a few have been controversial. Most of those controversies are where policy and wikiculture collide.

However, it's time for me to take a break, which I shall now do. Toddst1 (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It can be a bad block but technically within policy. I've run into situations where I could have blocked or protected an article and I'd prefer not to block normally good editors, especially someone with 40,000 edits and a clean block log. So I protect rather than block in those situations. I wasn't supporting Johnuniq's comment about a previous clash - that's the 'if' bit and the fact that I said that I supported his comment about your problems with criticism. I said 'if' because a quick look suggested that it was not unrelated to this and thus would be part of the same 'clash'. But I guess I wasn't clear enough and I apologise for that. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Some people are just hotheads, can't change everyone's bad judgment. :) - Hopefully, MrX returns; he was a valuable contributor. Teammm ^talk
_email 17:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ha, the lynch mob is out. A shitty post on Mr. X's talk page by Epipelagic, calling for Todd's head, and a ringing endorsement for that message from an editor with 446 article edits. For the record, I think Todd (his name is not Todd, but I like calling him that) is a fine admin. Mr. X., as far as I know, is a fine editor. Epipelagic is a fine editor. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• What shitty post? The only post I made there was to support a hurting content builder. Where did I call for Todd's head? If anything, I pointed out his head wouldn't roll. Why is okay to say and do nasty things to content builders, and not okay for content builders to talk back, or even talk among themselves? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think Drmies is referring to the words "In a just world it would be Toddst1 that is retiring." StAnselm (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes he is; thank you. Part of the shittiness of the comment is the false dichotomy it sets up: admins versus content builders. You may have missed this, but Todd has also created a bit of content. Again, I'm not saying that Toddst1's block was advisable, but sheesh, take it easy. In a just world, sure--in a just world MrX wouldn't be retiring after one short block (some of us know how it feels), so one wonders if there is a more general malaise, which happens to many of us here. At any rate, this ANI dumpfest is not doing anything to improve anything, and less is more. And look at me contribute to the more which makes it less--but I think that Toddst1 is being unfairly chastised in addition to being justly scrutinized and perhaps criticized. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Amen. Will somebody please close this? MrX was unblocked, and the block on Sportfan5000 is expired. Nothing left to do. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I also think that protection would have been better--but the warnings for edit warring the previous day make Mr. X. look like a bit of an edit warrior, at least from Todd's point of view, and that explains why one side was blocked and the other wasn't. That doesn't justify it, but it does explain it. And I support Dougweller's comment, above. So, not great, but we shouldn't have to call for heads or leave the project. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 23 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.

Strange business

Strange business going on at Postcentral gyrus

• DMacks reverting a stream of edits (including intermediate edits) on a presumption (unproved) of copyvio. May be true but should have proof presented either on user's talk page or article talk page (neither found for this incident).
• Reverted edits contains multiple edits, including grammar/punctuation from said user, and one from other users
• User Jwratner1 did indeed make one (out of the multiple edits) copyvio
• Having been reverted, a new account (Epiphanize101) inserts the same content.

Have happened upon this in my wikitravels. Am flagging for admin attention. --LT910001 (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

...and as part of your wikitravels, you approached the editors first to discuss and/or resolve the issues? ES&L 09:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Jwratner1 is indefinitely blocked for copyvio so discussion is futile. Epiphanize101 has edited only 4 articles, 3 of which are completely unrelated. All were also edited by Jwratner1. SPI raised. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Jwratner1 was engaged in multiple copyvio edits on multiple pages, some going back a while in their revision history or even scattered a bit in time and location in the articles. I explicitly checked many on multiple pages over time and every substantive one was a hit from various textbooks and related materials, but did not check every one. Obviously copyvio is completely prohibited and must be cleared promptly when found. Given the pattern of the problem, I was not able to easily undo or remove each occurrence easily, so I took a blunter approach to solve the problem. No prejudice against others redoing their own or others' edits that were lost as a side effect (and I apologize to those who may feel trampled-upon for good edits, or good-faith edits to copyvio original text) that got lost. No prejudice either against others independently verifying that content is actually original prose and re-adding it, thereby taking ownership of it themselves (which leads to the SPI, which seems pretty WP:DUCK-). DMacks (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that we're here at ANI, I'd be happy to respond to any comments/concerns that someone raises here, rather than at my talkpage, as it is now a discussion involving more than just "me and someone who asked me directly". DMacks (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

DMacks, I agree that a centralised forum is better. I am unhappy because (1) the revert was broad and not specifically targeted at a particular edit (2) the user was 'presumed' to have infringed copyright but not proven and (3) there was no link provided on the user's talk page, article talk page, or edit summary pointing to a place where I could get more information about why the edit had been made in that way. A link to a copyright investigation in one of those three places would have been very useful to help understand the issue at hand. At any rate, I just wanted to flag this to you, but because of the possible concurrent sockpuppetry by user at hand I felt it better to raise this issue in a central place.--LT910001 (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Anonoumous user keeps adding unsourced information

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 now deleted unsourced information added by anonoumous users 3 times within the past four hours. The unsourced content is this section, Tractor_Sazi_F.C.#Affiliated_clubs. I would like for an editor to remove it and lock the page.

Please note that I asked for sources all three times and also asked the user(s) not to engage in an edit war. Borek 9 (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You could have left the user a polite note on their talk page, they might not know how to see the article history. Also please notify any users that you talk about here. -- œ^™ 13:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

They are different IP's, but I suspect one, single user behind this since the same information is added. He/she knows how to use the history.... Anyway, will the page be locked or not? The user(s) are User:151.247.125.119, User:151.247.125.156 and User:151.247.125.58. Borek 9 (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's hard for an inexperienced user to find just the right noticeboard. Borek 9 should primarily be thanked for reporting, over and above getting told what they ought to have done instead or in addition. All the IPs (I count ten of them) are obviously one person edit-warring, and it would be quite a business to try to discuss with or alert any or all of them on their talkpages, especially since they've probably moved on to an eleventh or fifteenth IP by now. Thanks for your help, User:Borek 9. The article is semiprotected now, but if you should see disruption and edit warring from similar IPs, on that article or another, please report again, here or on my page. The range happens to be quite small, so it can be blocked if necessary. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 22 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.

Gaming of the system by Ryulong

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.

---

It has come to my attention that user Ryulong has been causing Disruption in Anime and manga related articles.this is noticeable in this talk page. If you take a look at the history you notice that every single comment someone else makes he Immediately Retortes and is making no attempt to Reach consensus. however beats down the opposition until everyone agrees with him if this isn't a prime example of stonewalling I don't know what is.I would like to stress that I'm uninvolved in this despute and am stating this feed because I care about the integrity of this wiki.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm having an active discussion with two editors. How the hell is that gaming the system?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No offence however It looks to me that a clear consensus has been reached however you are pushing your side of the argument. This is a clear example of stonewalling and it is gaming the system.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no "clear consensus". There's two people with opposing view points and a third opinion leaning towards one of the view points.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(To both: continued discussion about whether there is consensus should happen at the project's talk page. Sancho 15:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC))

How would you prefer Ryulong behave? Should Ryulong wait a certain amount of time before expressing disagreement? It's only been a day since that conversation started, and it seems like the participants are finding common ground. Their disagreement hasn't been resolved yet, but it's an ongoing discussion, as far as I can tell. Sancho 15:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And so what does WP:DR say to do next? ES&L 15:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sanchom The issue isn't that policies have been broken the issue is that Ryulong has his own system to sneek around the policies if you talk a closer look at Ryulongs behavior you see how patterns are developing which show a long term abuse of the system.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to sneak around policies nor am I a long term abuser of the system. I'm having an argument on article content in which I disagree with another editor. What the hell is your problem?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stay calm; it helps :) Sancho 15:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not apparent that anything is going wrong in this instance, though. There are active conversations, with a small number of participants. I'm guessing one of the other participants may be leaning to asking for a third opinion, but hasn't yet. What do you suggest be done? The steps at WP:DR are fully open to the participants of the discussion if they feel they are not getting anywhere. Sancho 15:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a rather ill-informed ANI filing, there is no wrongdoing or untowards behavior in that linked discussion in the slightest. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ you have a long term pattern of abuse.

• In this article Ryulong is in a dispute with an Ip notice how Ryulong Did 3 reverts on the 17th then waited till the 19th to revert more stuff that he disagreed with. This History clearly shows Ryulong Strategy for getting past the 3 revert rule.
• In this article Ryulong is in another dispute However right after his 3 reverts are up on the 14th he waits around 50 hours and then on the 16th he continues to revert what other people write.This is Clearly Gaming the 3rr.

Ryulong is guilty of trying to Refract talk page comment.

• here his is trying to remove a block notice.
• Removed an notice for an 3rr noticeboard discussion.
• Removed Notices of his wrong doings.
• And most recently here\

Ryulong has also have done mass reverts to a single editor

• Here.
• and here.

With all this evidence I don't know what to say you are abusing the system.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:00, 22 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 attack and disruptive editing by Arildnordby

• Arildnordby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bladesmulti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sati (practice) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Death by burning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Arildnordby made some edits[35] on the page Sati (practice), referring to author-less and almost 200 years old source. Not even a single time he would bring to talk page, but sure edit war. When I brought the issue to his talk page, he would make irresponsible reply like, "you think modern historian cite these stats", which is already contradictory. Check the history of another page called Death by burning, he made the similar and more edits on this page, which contradict WP:Cherrypicking, WP:Forking, WP:SEEALSO, except that, there are on going issues with the article of Sati(seen in talk page), I removed them, as per description on edit summary, but he reverted each of my edits, calling each them "vandalism". Later on his talk page he writes "It is not surprising that vandals like you start bullying others."

Yet no better source has been presented, but claims that i vandalize[36] and I am Liar[37], after getting debunked, he claims that he provided "among best stats", despite these are the only reports in this regard. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

He is quite simply lying, for example omitting from mentioning that I HAVE added modern historians citing those precise statistics. So yes, I stand by my charge of this user that he is bullying others.Arildnordby (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Historians that are debunking the statistics What's the need of the report that has been debunked already, for not only main page, but other pages. Other than that, the report are almost 200 year old, incomplete(like source suggest). Bladesmulti (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No they are not. At most, they are saying the British estimates are under-estimates of the frequency. Which is quite different from they being over-estimates. The statistics are perfectly trustworthy of actually reported cases, providing an important lower barrier for numbers of sati.Arildnordby (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Other than the source write that "not only is the pre-1815 data is scanty, but even the usable 'hard numbers' are fraught with the problems." and "the emerging colonial government simply did not possess the administrative apparatus." You have yourself admitted the allegation of this single source that they are called to be underestimate. That makes it straight. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And, again: "did not possess the administrative apparatus." will lead simply to under-estimates by truthful reporting, not to overestimates. Thus, the given reports are AMONG our "best possible estimates", and they will tend to err on the side of under-reporting. Providing trustworthy lower bounds is very important; they demolish, for example, claims that only 20 or 80 widows were burnt in Bengal for a given year.Arildnordby (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

To call inclusion of such statistics of that type for "disruptive editing" is, again, just symptomatic of your own churlishness, and aim to bully others.YOU were the one disruptive, removing 6700+ from Death by Burning, for example.Arildnordby (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Because they were unconstructive edits, contradicting rules, as per described in WP:Cherrypicking, WP:Forking, WP:SEEALSO, something that you still haven't explained. And even after debunking of those unpopular stats, you should read WP:Not TRUTH. This is exactly your case. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

What "debunking?? All you have managed to show is that some historians regard those figures as too low in estimating instances of sati, not that they were made up by the British. Thus, they remain trustworthy lower bounds for BengalArildnordby (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Disapproving, refuting, are some similar words, they weren't made up by british(never said it) but since they were relatively low in amount, and 'problematic' like author described, almost nothing recorded during 18th century either. Thus they haven't been used. If you use them, you should attribute them, instead of edit warring, forking, like explained above. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Refuting? Yang refutes the fantasy claim provided in the Datamation Foundation link already provided, that: " The reasons being the change in the statutory succession rights of the widows, which brought on them this inhuman brutality with the ulterior motive of depriving them from sharing the property." This nonsensical idea is what was the "link" on these issues originally, along with a kooky librarian's personal website, necrometrics. It is not my links that needs an overhaul, but those allready present. Mine are better.Arildnordby (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As for other scholars utilizing these numbers, or very close, to it, you may look at Mortimer Wheeler's The Cambridge History of India, p.137 He uses my reference for the low number of sati in 1815, and the high number in 1818, only marginal divergences for the other years. To publish therefore, as I did, precisely those numbers in 1815-1824 that historians have used, is what you call "disruptive editing". In my view, you are the disruptive one.Arildnordby (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, in 2004 Colonialism as Civilizing Mission: Cultural Ideology in British India, the numbers 442 in 1816 and 707 for 1817 are precisely those given in my original link, appearing at p.77. Which you said was "way too old". It is not, it IS among the best possible estimates we have. And that's why historians cite them.Arildnordby (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I haven’t looked into or have any opinion on the underlying content dispute. But it seems to met hat the word vandalism is misplaced in this case and should be retracted. Vandalism is a word that on Wikipedia is used for edits where people intentionally mess up Wikipedia simply in order to mess it up. I don’t think this is the case here. Otherwise, maybe the Reliable sources noticeboard might be of help for the underlying content dispute. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing 6700+ completely necessary info from Death by burning IS vandalism. A highly compressed history of sati belongs there, as well as discussion of numbers. Precisely as they belong relative to Spanish Inquisition numbers, say. As for the weird charge of content forking, it is mutually 90% NON-overlap between article Sati (practice) and Death by burning, so it doesn't stick.Arildnordby (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, Lata Mani is using precisely the same numbers for 1815 and 1818 as my original source, as well as observing the fluctuation in the other years of about 500-600 (generally between. p.21 Still "way too old" numbers I inserted? Tell that to the professional research community.Arildnordby (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

One liners doesn't means that they are referring to the stats to any credible level. Read WP:POINT, since you are bragging about other sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hi guys, have you considered opening a WP:RFC on the talk page of the article under dispute, or perhaps filing at WP:DRN? Because this is sounding very much like a content dispute (and any behavioural issues are merely that you're both angry about the content dispute...) 82.31.206.27 (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I agree; DRN is the place for this. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

ErpertAs it's obvious, that this is no issue with WP:DRN, it is issue about Personal attack, WP:Cherrypicking, WP:Forking, It is written in a book, must be true. Since this user doesn't seems to be stop calling any of my edit a "vandalism", and further claim that i am "bullying" him, I don't think he is ever able to reach to any consensus. You think he can? Probably not. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Have a look, at the recent, and massive edit warring by Arilnordby, Main Page, Death by burning, and his allegation that "you vandalize", is similar to other known users such as Lihaas, Darkness Shines, even though he was warned hardly a few hours before, can be see here, he also allege Darkness shines to bully him, just like he alleged me here, like it can be viewed. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I caught the 3rr report and blocked Aril for 24 hours for a clear violation of 3rr. There are obviously further problems that will need to be resolved here, unfortunately. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Anon editor(s) whose IP links them to parent company deleting sections of RSA Security

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. Two anonymous editors have deleted sections of the article RSA Security pertaining to news reports that the company knowingly sold software containing a NSA backdoor. They were made via IP addresses belonging to EMC, the parent company of RSA:

• Edit 1 and Edit 2 by 128.221.224.61
• Edit 3 by 128.221.224.62

These edits removed well-cited material; the editor(s) left change notices but declined to explain the deletions at the article's Talk page. It appears, therefore, that someone at EMC is trying to delete text deemed unfavorable to the company.

This is my first report here; what's the next step? Blocking? PRRfan (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The Conflict of Interest Noticeboard? Request page protection? ES&L 18:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two days. --AdmrBoltz 19:06, 22 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.

Need help on persistent IP editor

(Not really a clear 3RR vio, and I'm involved so I can't block, myself) 62.73.9.4 (talk · contribs) has been trying to insert the supposed salaries of actors at Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. The matter was discussed on the talk page, pointing out the sources originally used failed reliability tests. The user claimed to have found more, including IMDB, but considering the unreliable nature of IMDB, and the lack of explicit mention of salaries in the other articles given, this isn't sufficient to add the salaries. So when myself and others have removed these, the editor has responded by then removing other references in the article (from reliable cites like ew.com and ign.com for films), claiming them unreliable (eg [38] , [39], [40]). I have warned this editor [41] which was subsequently removed. If I wasn't involved, this would be a short term block and encouragement to use the talk page. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem is bullying me and saying IMBD sources are not reliable (even they he knows Martin Downey Jr made $15 million[42], Jude Law made $9 million[43] and Rahael McAdam made $5 million[44][45][46][47][48] on Sherlock Holmes Game of Shadows), ok if they aren't I looked into the article deeper and found there were several sources that are reliable on the article as it appears. I found ew.com and ign.com for films was unreliable which Masem is doesn't explain that are vice versa. I know he wants me blocked and is not willing to consensus the salaries on the Game of Shadows film. As I said, the sources I only replied were only adding salary information on the actors, what is so hard about that? It seems like he refuses to have the salaries on there as if he is being paid by a private agency to avoid putting actor salaries on the article. Is that wrong to place salaries with sources to at least verify the budget and what the budget cost to pay the actors out of the budget? Really, it seems I am being bullied here.--62.73.9.4 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

But the sources you have added are either 1) fail to meet reliable source guidelines (which, btw ew.com and ign.com clearly met as they have editorial control) and 2) do not explicitly mention the salary for that film, making the addition original research, as has been explained on the talk page. Find appropriate sources that clearly state the salaries for this film, they can be added with no question, but you don't have those yet. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So your saying no salary information? Where do you think they get the information? IMBD is an actors account, they have user personal user files, you cannot log on and comment like a blog. It's a bio of their film history. I personally feel you are being paid here, not sure if it's agent of the Actors Gilled but their salaries is part of the budget, how do you think it cost $125 million[49] to make this movie? Do you think it was only location and camera's? 35% of the film went on actors salaries. IMDB is not a blog, you cannot comment on their like a blog, it states the information of what they made and what they acted in, is that so hard to ask. If there is no information, then how do you think the Los Angeles Time knows why the movie cost $125 million dollars then? http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/12/box-office-sherlock-holmes-alvin-chipmunks.html There is a break down what the movie cost, bottom line.--62.73.9.4 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not bullying, the editor is simply trying to make sure that incorrect information is not added to the article. This requires a verifiable, reliable source. IMDB, according to their website, gets their information from various sources, including visitors to the site, and they do not guarantee its accuracy. This is probably why MASEM (t) finds it unreliable. Try to find a news article that states the information you are trying to add. If IMDB got it from a verifiable, reliable source, you should have no trouble finding one and citing it. Don't take it so personal, so many people edit Wikipedia, that it is inevitable that someone will eventually disagree with you. Hope this clears things up, —Josh3580_talk/hist 23:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, how did you interpret "Find appropriate sources that clearly state the salaries for this film, they can be added with no question, but you don't have those yet" as "no salary information"? You don't seem to be open at all to valid and helpful guidance, and in fact are interpreting it as bullying. SeeWP:AGF. —Josh3580_talk/hist 23:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Just confirming that IMDB is not a reliable source by our criteria - it gets brought up at WP:RSN from time to time and editors are told the same thing (I just noticed one editor wrote that he occasionally interviews actors and they can't understand why IMDB lists them as having been in films that they weren't actually in). Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Marriage

User:Armbrust recently closed a request for comment on whether the abbreviation "d." for died should be used in Template:Marriage. My belief is that there is clear consensus to use "d." for died. Despite this User:Technical 13 is (1) insisting that there was no consensus to use "d." for died despite clear evidence to the contrary; (2) reverting my changes to the template, template documentation and sandbox despite clear evidence that the edits follow consensus; and (3) altering the closer's summary[50]. DrKiernan (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Marriages don't "die". The end in divorce, annulment, or in one of the wedded being widowed or survived. The discussion on the talk page was whether or not the ambiguous terms of d., m., s., and w. should be replaced with less ambiguous three letter abbreviations. That discussion was closed as consensus to replace those single letter ambiguous terms with the three letter ambiguous terms of div., mar., sur., wid.. There was never any discussion of adding died to the template. I believe that DrKiernan has misread the consensus, and do not fault him... I do believe it would have been more appropriate for him to attempt to discuss it with me on the template's talk page, my talk page, or WP:DRN instead of coming directly to AN/I to discuss it, but it is what it is and I am willing to discuss it wherever. Technical 13 (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The closer specified d. for died. You edited it to claim they didn't. The supportive points mostly included supporting d. for died, as well. Speaking as someone who was not involved in any way and really couldn't care less what the result of the RFC was, all things considered. SamBC(talk) 23:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

    Errata - sorry, I was wrong that most specified d. for died - but most who indicated any opinion about death supported d for died, and no-one supporting overall specified "except 'd' shouldn't be for 'died'" or such. SamBC(talk) 23:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

See also the somewhat WP:POINTy section beneath the linked (closed) RFC. SamBC(talk) 23:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• The closer said that that since 'd' means 'died' for some people, it shouldn't be used and 'div.' should be used instead, not that died should be added to a template about marriage in which died is not a third option past survived or widowed. Also note Sam, having a point does not make someone WP:POINTy as it clearly says in that guideline itself (read WP:NOTPOINTy). Technical 13 (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Marriages end in death, or in one of the wedded being dead. The discussion on the talk page was whether or not the ambiguous terms of d. and w. should be replaced with less ambiguous abbreviations. That discussion was closed as consensus to replace those single letter ambiguous terms with the unambiguous terms of d., div., and wid.. There was never any discussion of adding three letter abbreviations for married or survived to the template.

The template talk page is for discussing the template. This noticeboard is for discussing editor behavior. Your behavior has been sub-par because you are (1) claiming that there was discussion of the abbreviations for marriage and survived (there was none); (2) claiming that using "d." for died was not discussed (it was); (3) altering the comments of other editors in violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines; and (4) edit-warring to maintain your version of the template against consensus. DrKiernan (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

DrKiernan, this noticeboard is only for discussing editor behavior once all other options have been exhausted, with the first proper step being to attempt to discuss it on the other editors talk page, which you made no attempt to do. Be careful when flinging poo in here, as I've seen WP:BOOMERANG catch a few people off guard. As for your bullet list of my indiscretions which you think warranted dragging me here;

1. The consensus was to accept the sandbox as was shown in the testcases which I had altered to gain consensus of whether people wanted to leave the template status quo, or make the changes per your request. Therefor, the consensus to adopt your version including three letter abbreviations for all terms.
2. The only discussion about d. meaning died was the back and forth discussion that you and I had before anyone else popped in and contributed to the consensus building process. Not a single one of them agreed that "died" should be added to the template.
3. I reverted part of an alteration to an already closed discussion that was seemed to confuse the issue. This is not against any "law of Wikipedia"
4. The only edit warring I have observed has been on your part in an attempt to push changes through to a template for which there was no consensus to make. I encourage you to open a new discussion if you want to add a new pre-described reason to the template. Alternatively, I encourage you drop the stick and let the template stand as consensus has prescribed.

Now, I hope that these issues that are mostly a content dispute about what belongs in the template or not will be swiftly resolved. I don't intend to say much more unless specifically asked a question and hope this will be quickly closed so I can take this page back off my watchlist. Thank you all. Technical 13 (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

1. I don't want three-letter abbreviations for all terms, and never said that at any point anywhere.
2. Two other editors agreed "change to d. ... I agree with DrKiernan", "change to d. ... per DrKiernan"
3. You admit then that you altered someone else's comment in "an already closed discussion".
4. I have performed 1 revert on Template:Marriage compared to your two. I have performed no reverts on Template:Marriage/testcases and Template talk:Marriage compared to your one on each. I have performed two reverts on Template:Marriage/sandbox compared to your three. DrKiernan (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(4) redux: Make that 1 revert on Template:Marriage compared to your three, and no reverts on Template talk:Marriage compared to your two. DrKiernan (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I just realised that Technical 13's so-called revert of the close message wasn't even a revert, it was edited beyond the revert; it did not return the area in question to a state it had ever been in. 'd' was mentioned in the close statement as it was first posted [51], and the so-called 'revert' was supposedly to an edit, by the closer, that added what d, div etc actually stood for [52] - but it removed the mention of 'd' entirely, and didn't remove the expansions of the others [53]. I find it hard not to see that edit as duplicitous, and editing other people's posts in talk is certainly against guidelines. SamBC(talk) 00:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Armbrust modified the closing statement to There is a clear consensus to change the abbreviations to d. for died, div. for divorced and wid. for widowed respectively. -- Since there was no d. for died in the template to begin with, and there was no consensus in the discussion to add it, I made a partial revert to put it back to There is a clear consensus to change the abbreviations to div. for divorced and wid. for widowed respectively. which reflected the original close of There is a clear consensus to change the abbreviations to d., div. and wid. respectively. in which there was rightly no mention of "died". This revert restored the closing statement to its original tone without undoing any actual clarification that Armbrust may have intended to do. Technical 13 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Technical 13, this doesn't look proper to me at all. In this edit the closer (Armbrust) described the consensus as being for "d., div. and wid. respectively" and then in this subsequent edit the closer revised that to say " d. for died, div. for divorced and wid. for widowed respectively". You then, in this edit (labeled as a revert, but in fact an alteration) changed this to read " div. for divorced and wid. for widowed respectively". You clearly feel that this would have been the correct close, but this is not something that the closer ever wrote. When objecting to a close you may state your view, you may not rewrite the close without the closer's say-so. Particularly not without indicating that the wording is yours and not the closer's on the page. This is simply not acceptable, and you know better. DES ^(talk) 04:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I might add that you are not allowed to assume without evidence what the "actual clarification that Armbrust may have intended to do" is. The comment above that "This revert restored the closing statement to its original tone" is misleading. The change altered the close to a state it had never been in previously -- one without "d.". Now maybe there was no consensus for 'd." and the closer was in gross error, but that isn't how to deal with such a case. DES ^(talk) 04:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• DES, looking at it again, I may have misread what Armbrust wrote. I read it as "we are going from using d. to div. for divorced and wid. for widowed respectively". Taking into account that there is no died in the template, and no-one ever suggested adding it to the template (DrKiernan only said that since d. can be read as died, it shouldn't be used for divorced, not that he wanted to add died to the list of predefined reasons in this template), I apologize to Armbrust if that was the case, and would appreciate his clarification of the clarification on the talk page if my interpretation of that was incorrect. Technical 13 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I just... what? The close said "consensus to change the abbreviations to d., div. and wid." (emphasis mine). How is that ambiguous? And in any case, you should never, ever be editing what someone else said on a talk page, least of all a close statement. You labelled something a revert when it was not a revert at all. That's quite a significant degree of confusion. SamBC(talk) 14:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Really, so you can't see a dyslexic person reading it as "consensus to change the abbreviations d. to div. and wid." (emphasis mine). Wow. Way to AGF. Then, for the closer to introduce died into a closing for a discussion where no-one discussed died at all except that d. shouldn't be used for divorced since d. means died in an entirely different context after the fact effectively changing the close, and me reverting those words that did not clarify (show me where it says partial reverts aren't allowed and I'll show you were it says they are) and claiming it was not a revert. This is why I hate these toxic noticeboards. Anyways, I've got more important stuff to do. Technical 13 (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Why would the existing 'd.' (meaning divorced) be changed to both div. and wid.? If I read that, I'd assume that I'd misread it and look again, carefully; I have occasional cognitive issues myself, so I have some experience of this happening :) SamBC(talk) 17:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Technical 13, if you correctly understood what the closer (Armbrust) wrote, or even what he meant to write or should have written, then he ratehr badly misstated things. Putiing "d." after "to" in "There is a clear consensus to change the abbreviations to d., div. and wid. respectively." or in the later version "There is a clear consensus to change the abbreviations to d. for died, div. for divorced and wid. for widowed respectively." pretty clearly says that the final result should include "d.". If you thought that is not what the consensus showed, a request for clarification, ("did you mean...") or a challenge to the close ("I think you mis-read the consensus because...") would have been fine, but the way you responded was not. I hope that Armbrust will weigh in to make clear exactly what he did mean, but until then the close should be restored to the way he left it. DES ^(talk) 15:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

DES, I have fully reverted the closing to what it was when it was closed. I believe it should stay that way until Armbrust (who has been pinged multiple times from this discussion as well as properly notified by DrKiernan at the onset of this discussion. When you read it as I did as "consensus to change the abbreviations d. to div. and wid." (emphasis mine) then there is no way that you can say that it is clearly stated that the final result should include "d." for died and that should be added to the template. Can anyone here show me where anyone supported or even suggested that died should be added to the template? I really don't see it.

• DrKiernan's request was: Please change the abbreviation for divorce to "div." and not "d." "d." is universally understood to mean died.

• Only asks for the abbreviation to be changed, not to add a new outcome to the template.

• TonyBallioni, Frietjes, NinjaRobotPirate, Plastikspork and Somedifferentstuff only supported changing the abbreviation to div., not to adding a new outcome of died (I used a noping there as to not be disruptive and POINTy, and I want to clarify that so I am not falsely accused of being POINTy again).

In conclusion, DrKiernan never asked for died to be added to the template; adding died would be ambiguous because it doesn't say if the topic was survived by the spouse or widowed by them (doesn't say who died, and the template already supports the "who" factor); and no-one supported adding died to the template because it was never asked for. Technical 13 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Technical 13, you wrote above "Can anyone here show me where anyone supported or even suggested that died should be added to the template?" and "DrKiernan never asked for died to be added to the template". Here are some diffs which I would read as showing that DrKiernan and two other editors did support "d." n the template for "died".

• In this edit, DrKiernan, wrote " I think now it is better to change this template so that instead of using abbreviations we've made up ourselves, we use abbreviations that are already common practice:...d for died...div for divorced...wid for widowed...These abbreviations in brackets beside the spouse's name would indicate to me that they apply to the spouse, i.e. the spouse died or was widowed in that year."
• In this edit TonyBallioni wrote: "*Support proposal to change to "d.", "div.", and "wid."" (emphasis on "to" added).
• In this edit Frietjes wrote "support proposal to change to "d.", "div.", and "w." to "wid." per TonyBallioni and Dr. Kiernan".
• Several others merely mentioned a "change to div". Perhaps this was confusion on the part of multiple editors, but three supported "to 'd.'" and no one explicitly opposed that except you, who opposed the entire change.

You might want to reconsider your remarks above. DES ^(talk) 16:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• DES, none of those show any proposal to add died to a template that already employs survived and widowed. Only to change to "d.", "div.", and "wid." We are still talking about which abbreviations to use for existing text in the template, died was not an existing text and therefor you can't change it to d. because there is nothing to change it from. Technical 13 (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • My reading of the closed discussion is that DrKiernan was originally just asking for the existing 'd.' for divorced to change to 'div.', but by the time support developed, had changed to saying that the existing abbreviations should be changed to 'd.' for 'died', 'div.' for 'divorced' and 'wid.' for 'widowed', and this was what was supported. Changing the existing abbreviations means adding those that are absent. SamBC(talk) 17:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• T13, There do appear to be several people saying 'd' should be for 'died' and no-one expressly opposing it except you, who was opposing the whole thing. The proposal was amended (December 22) to specify 'd' for 'died', and all the support messages were posted after that amendment. The clear sense of the consensus, to me, is that d. is included as died. The close statement explicitly includes 'd', and in the context of a proposal that it mean 'died', so I find your persistent reverting of the inclusion of 'd' in the template alarming. I'm not going to get into a revert war over it, but it is very strange. The proposal people supported specified 'd' for died. People supported it. The close specified that 'd' be included as well as the other elements of the proposal. So what exactly is the problem with acting on that consensus and including 'd' for died in the template? SamBC(talk) 17:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• I feel like a broken record. Please read all of the other discussion here, there was no proposal to add the more ambiguous died to a template that already supports the more specific survived and widowed. Therefor, there was no consensus to add died as an option to the template. Those people never said "I support adding d. for died, and changing to use div. for divorced and wid. for widowed." They said that d. means died, div. means divorced, and wid. means widowed to them, not that died should be added. What I find alarming is that DrKiernan is acting against the written consensus and attempting to add something to the template. Making that template more ambiguous by adding died to it removes most of the little bit of function to the template that has had me supporting its existence and pushing for it to be kept in the multiple deletion discussions that have been had on the topic. If died is added to the template, I will see no reason for keeping the template and will support its deletion the next time that Andy or Lady Lotus or someone else nominates it for deletion. As you can see in the previous discussions, I only supported its being kept if it was properly cleaned up and doing something useful. A lot of progress has been made on this front, but I'm not going to push so hard to keep it if it goes back to being more ambiguous and becoming counter productive. So, I've little more to say. Time to move on to another project. Thank you and have a nice day. Technical 13 (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) If you are correct, T13, three editors mad nonsensical comments on the RfC that couldn't possibly have meant what they said. Perhaps so, but perhaps they actually meant what they said. in any case that is not an issue for this page, I merely wanted to point out that your "no one ever said 'd.' at all" comment above is not correct. It is true that none of them used the word "add". As to what they really mean, perhaps they will say themselves, on the proper page rather than you or I needing to guess. DES ^(talk) 17:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I do hope that they clarify on the template's talk page, and there are now two sections for them to do so with the option of explicitly adding a third (which is unneeded in my opinion as DrKiernan's new proposal to remove the survived parameter should cover it). Technical 13 (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

First I want to point out, that at time of the closure I didn't know, that the "died" parameter isn't used in the template. I have than seen, that the addition the parameter by DrKiernan was reverted by Technical 13. Seeing that, I tried to clarify the closure, but it looks it didn't succeeded. (Sorry about that.) Therefore I'm not planning on adding it back. Part of the problem may be, that users supporting the proposed change didn't know (like me), that it isn't the template, but that's just an educated guess. As this template has more than 3500 transclusions, a little bit extra couldn't hurt. And lastly I want to point out, that the abbreviation "d." should be used for "died", therefore it probably shouldn't be used as a parameter for "divorced". Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC) (P.S.: You can ping me all you want, I have disabled it with a script, and only see it in AWB. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC))

I'm wondering why there needs to be letters within the template at all? (If this is previously discussed I'm sorry, I only skimmed this section so don't shoot me.) But it just seems redundant to have this template at all when regular text would suffice. There isn't a template for partners so when they do have both, it looks silly to have the whole "(m. 1990-2006)" and then "(2007-present)" beneath it. Spouse means they are married, so why repeat the fact that they are married with having the little "m" or having the redundant "d"? Isn't divorce implied if the marriage ended unless it was through an annulment or death? LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Good question, and I don't really know myself either. The template, however, was nominated three times in 2013 and was snow kept the last time. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

According to the template talk page it is because without the letters, there can be confusion between the dates of a marriage and birth/death dates, which are formatted similarly. This has apparently gone back and forth in discussion at least. DES ^(talk) 19:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Users might not have known that 'died' wasn't already in the template, but I'm not sure that alters the apparent consensus that it should be there. I, personally, would add it based on that, but start a new RFC on the question of how marriages ended by the death of one of the parties should be labelled, given the existing debate as to the virtue (and comprehensibility) of widowed/survived. SamBC(talk) 22:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Could I please get full protection on the template and all its sub-pages. There is still editing and reverting going on despite the issue being under discussion and not concluded. DrKiernan (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Mos

This is an MoS issue, not a template issue (the decision on what abbreviations to use would be the same, whether this template was used or not) and an RfC should be opened up on an appropriate MoS subpage, then advertised at relevant projects and the "centralised discussion" template. As I have explained before, the template serves no useful purpose and should be deleted, but that's irrelevant to the MoS mater. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've added policy and style to the RfC parameters, injected the text that was placed by legobot on bio into the corresponding new pages, and added a note about the discussion to {{CENT}}. I don't think there is much more to be done here. There are now more appropriate discussions on the template's talk page, so unless anyone has something to add, I am requesting this discussion be closed. Technical 13 (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The content issue is moving forward in more appropriate places, yes, and, so far, in perfectly civil fashion. I'm not sure whether anything that's been said by you, Technical 13, counts as an admission of fault (on the editing of a close statement to change its meaning, specifically), but I don't see the need for any further actions if there has been an admission of fault in that regard. If the original closer is happy that the current version of the close message reflects there intent, rather than the version they left there (as you, this time cleanly, reverted their own clarifying edit to it), then it can stand as it is. I think you have acted inappropriately in blocking implementation of the conclusion of that consensus, but given that there is fresh discussion on that for additional clarity, I don't think that requires any precipitate action. That's just my opinion has someone who has only been involved in this since it was raised here. SamBC(talk) 16:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that Technical 13 thinks reverting three times in 24 hours on the same page[54][55][56] is not edit-warring[57][58].

And that s/he thinks altering another person's talk page comments [59][60] is acceptable despite being told otherwise.[61]

However, as no admission of fault is forthcoming and no action can be taken, prolonging this discussion any further is pointless. So, close this section. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Given the most recent comment of Technical 13 on the template talk page, I am now striking the above. Claiming that "Anne Boleyn died" is "more ambiguous" than "Henry VIII of England was widowed by Anne Boleyn"[62] is so utterly out there, it beggars belief. The attitude shown by User:Technical 13 is beyond reasonable and there is no useful purpose to be gained from having such input into the discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• DrKiernan's inability to accept that there may be perspectives other than his or her own, requesting that this discussion be closed, then pinging me back here to attack me by making a claim that my input is unreasonable and useless, on top of his or her insistence on reverting a tool that was requested by DES in a consensus building discussion feels like borderline vindictive WP:HARASSment. This user has further violated NPA in this edit claiming that I'm deliberately trying to make the template look more and more ridiculous. on a template I've been contributing and trying to improve over the last 9-12 months. DrKiernan's contributions to the template have been minimal and have all required RfC discussions to try and build a consensus, that they have then gone and made edits against that consensus. he or she has repeatedly exhibited a BATTLEGROUND mentality in these discussions as well as flat out altering the comments of another in an attempt to further their cause. I find this very disruptive and disturbing. I realize that due to these attacks, that I am perhaps overreacting a bit, and I apologize for that up front. I'm feeling very emotionally charged as a result of this constant WIKIHOUNDING and HARASSMENT at the hand of this editor and will be taking a WIKIBREAK from this topic for the rest of the day and perhaps tomorrow as well to CALM down. I realize it can be difficult to AGF, especially when you can't for the life of you see the perspective of others. It doesn't not mean they mean the project harm, and I'm fairly certain that my thanks logs, received WikiLove on my talk page (also archived), and general notes of appreciation speaks volume in of itself that I am here to improve the project. I would like to thank the administrators for their time, and apologize for this not being dealt with on my talk page like it should have in the first place. Have a nice day. Technical 13 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "flat out altering the comments of another", linking to a diff where they edit their own statement, with a minor tweak, 2 minutes after they originally posted it. Meanwhile, you altered another user's close statement, and denied the consensus result, and, assuming good faith, clearly have great difficulty seeing the perspective of other people, as you haven't managed to do so despite patient and repeated explanation. Frankly, I'm rather baffled, and not by DrKiernan. SamBC(talk) 22:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Valeant Pharmaceuticals IP editing articles

We appear to have the manufacturer of Cold-fX aggressively editing the article on the product. There headquarters are in Laval, Quebec a city of 400,000.[63] This IP User:66.46.223.130 geolocates there [64]

The other IP editing is from Richmond Hill, another Valeant location.[65] User:174.112.42.106 [66] There is more evidence that is obvious but cannot say it. By the way how does one state that a paid employee of Valeant Pharmaceuticals is editing the page on Cold-fX? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

See {{COI}} for starters. That's for the article itself (not the Talk) and no longer applies once any resulting POV issues have been resolved. There might be something for Talk reminding editors to respect COI guidelines -- not sure -- and that would likely be only for persistent problems. No doubt you know these things sometimes become public quite suddenly so to be sure you're doing things right perhaps review WP:COI, WP:OUTING, and both the doc and the Talk for {{coi}}. EEng (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one-week, .106 has been blocked for EW. --AdmrBoltz 23:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting at Amanda Lindhout

Tedious editing at this article, first as I.P User:94.190.228.50 then as current user name after the page was protected by Mark Arsten, rehashing the same points on the article's talk page and on several user's talk pages including here, and continues to make changes to the article without consensus. SPA with a clear axe to grind. is now just vandalising the page as retaliation for failure to gain consensus. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The writing may have been tedious, but I suspect you meant tendentious? --MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently both. EEng (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well both. wp:tedious redirects to Tendentious editing. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am doing my best to improve this article, using a wide range of reliable sources. Please explain what is wrong - specifically - with this brief paragraph which you reverted:

"However, the book and Lindhout's initial decision to go to Somalia did receive criticism from a number of journalists. Some accounts of events in the book were contradicted by the version of events given by her co-captive Nigel Brennan, as found in his own book, published in 2011. The two no longer speak."

InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong, is that you have failed to gain consensus for the change at the article's talk page, then made the change anyway and commenced edit warring when you didn't get your way. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even mention this on the talk page. I made the change, you reverted it, and brought it here. "Edit-warring" - the page history will clearly show that Jeremey reverted SEVEN of my edits, before I made ONE single revert. One. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Several established editors have reached a consensus that these edits are against BLP policy. We've each spent time on it, trying to see the POV of the user being addressed here, however it does not appear to be a way of conveying the spirit and rules of Wikipedia to said individual. Discussions have been held on multiple user talk pages and the page talk page, all resulting in the same thing. Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Which is why you reverted me eight times. Btw, you didn't spend any time at all on content. You didn't edit the page, you didn't find any sources. I did all that. And you reverted. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You are confusing a reviewers rejection of pending changes with reverts. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I advised ITIOOR to review the proposed material at WP:BLPN before making any more changes. I also note that earlier edits as an IP were far wider-ranging [67] and were of a nature requiring much more than a single second-hand account. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I smell WP:OWB #72 coming into play. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Wise in 2006, and still wise in 2014, The Bushranger. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The edits of this editor, asnd the acknowledged IP edits, are very reminiscent of earlier edits by Twafotfs, who was blocked as a sock of indefinitely blocked serial puppeteer Ledenierhomme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). RolandR (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've fully protected the page for 72 hours to stop the edit war. Hopefully in that time some consensus will emerge. Some comments of mine:

• User:InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting and User:Jeremy112233 - you've both edit warred and I could have quite easily blocked you both except it wasn't the best way to stop this situation given that there is discussion ongoing and other people are involved. If that behaviour returns when the page is unprotected blocks will likely follow. I don't think it's an obvious enough BLP violation to invoke the 3RR exception - it's sourced and there is an arguement for it being balancing.
• User:Jeremy112233 - It's not sock puppetry when an IP user creates an account and admits they're the same user. There was no deliberate attempt to mislead and creating an account having edited as an IP is a perfectly valid action.
• I can see no consensus yet for the content not being included unless it's somewhere other than the talk page / BLP notice board. Two editors saying no to one yes is not really a consensus. Dpmuk (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not break the 3RR barrier at any point, nor has anybody if you actually look at the edits. If you actually look at the page there are a series of different edits, each dealt with differently. You will also see that some more appropriate edits by the editor were not reverted. There is no edit war here if you look at the actual content of the edits, but rather a contentious argument between several editors over a range of edits. You also put the page on full protect the day after there had been a relaxing of edit tensions and a move to discuss on the talk page, which is quite odd and likely an overreaction. Please take a closer look at this situations before making false accusations. On January 21st there were only two reverts from myself, which led to the user addressing the situation more piecemeal. The user then made four edits piecemeal, only one was reverted due to its removal of sourced material. That reversion was not contested. Next there were two reversions of the same material made by me, and in this instance the material being removed by the user was well sourced. Again, this was about them removing sourced content, not adding balancing material. Note that this reversion was then uncontested. This followed with a different section of material the user tried to remove, also sourced, which I reverted to keep in. There was then only one other reversion made by myself, which also went uncontested. This was the only attempt to add information, and said information has been seen by more than two editors as not appropriate. No breaking of 3RR on either side, including by "In The Interest of". I would appreciate you trying not to inflame the situation. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you go and familiarise yourself with our edit warring policy as you seem to have misunderstood it. To quote from the 3RR section: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period (my emphasis). I count 5 reverts by you between 00:46 and 02:55 on 23rd January (1,2, 3, 4 and 5), which is clear breach of 3RR and there's a further two reverts on 21st January. That to me is clear edit warring. InTheInterestofObjectiveReporting may not have broken 3RR as they often introduced slightly different material but continuing to introduce material that you know is likely to be reverted is still edit warring.

I protected it slightly over 12 hours after the last edit by any of the parties involved in the disagreement. Given that people have to sleep, have a daily routine etc it's not clear to me that a 12 hour break is an actual calming down of the situation or just people being unable to edit. Given that today's actions seem to be a continuation of what started a couple of days ago I felt it likely that this would flair up again once people got back to editing, hence the protection. Hopefully the page protection will give you all time to sort that out on the talk page. I'll be happy to unprotect once there's clear consensus on the talk page as to how to move forward. If you strongly disagree with my protection I'm happy for you to seek a secondopinion from another uninvolved admin and I won't object to whatever they decide. Dpmuk (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That is stretching it a bit I think ;) I'm not sure many pages out there in Wikipedia wouldn't qualify as edit warzones under that definition. That said, it really wasn't the same material, as I've pointed out, and there were several other editors making similar reverts. Your evidence is simply to put down five reverts and say they must be the same because they involved the same editors. Removal of different sections and then adding stuff like "cocktail waitress" to a journalist and author's occupation are clearly not the same items when it comes to 3RR. You also miss that the page was put on review mode, so edits needed to be reviewed before approved. I approved more than I declined and was thoughtful in my edit summaries of each decision (though it appears Wikipedia cuts those off sometimes). If you look at the editing pattern, it was simply that I was there first, as other editors were reviewing in the same manner. I guess we will just agree to disagree that protecting BLPs from personal vendettas is more important that second-guessing whether or not there is some policy out there that provides a loophole for such material to integrate itself into said pages. In terms of full protection, I couldn't care less when it is up, and could care even less if an admin does something rash. I was just pointing out that it was not likely necessary. Besides, I'm the sort that backs off an article once an admin starts to bluster, as that part of Wikipedia is far too time-consuming and irrational to spend time out of my day on :) Best left to you better sirs with more patience and insistence than I. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Rangeblock / whack-a-mole image vandalism

Throwaway account and IPs adding shock images to TFA / main page talk / other pages today:

• Barrara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 178.55.139.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 178.55.129.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 188.67.21.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 188.67.85.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.95.110.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 178.55.177.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 178.55.183.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 178.55.40.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 178.55.176.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 178.55.160.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Anyone care to look into rangeblocks? Bencherlite^Talk 13:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding:

• 178.55.182.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Bencherlite^Talk 13:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done To balance the protection of the project with limiting collateral damage, I have issued three short rangeblocks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Bencherlite^Talk 14:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

User bringing real world legal dispute onto project

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.

---

Last week, we were informed about the article Mobonix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mauricelwhite (talk · contribs), Iammobonix (talk · contribs), and Markwinters1 (talk · contribs) all claim to be a Mr. Maurice L. White who is allegedly a DJ who uses the name "Mobonix" on stage or a Mr. Mark Winters who owns a record label that has signed Mr. White as "Mobonix" who has been in a legal battle over trademarking with a Mr. Mohammed Kabir who is also a DJ who uses the name "Mobonix" on stage. This dispute over the article originally authored by Illxchild (talk · contribs) goes back to 2009 and has been simmering ever since the article was created it seems (there are multiple IP address edits to the article to instate the Mr. White version of the page in place of the Mr. Kabir version).

Mauricelwhite/Iammobonix/Markwinters1 has been disrupting Wikipedia in bringing his personal legal troubles with Mr. Kabir. The article was fully protected a week ago, but as soon as the protection expired, Mauricelwhite reinstated his version of the article on Mr. White, despite multiple messages sent to him that this action was inappropriate. He is clearly not here to improve the project and simply wishes to use Wikipedia as yet another venue to lay claim to the Mobonix trademark, even though AFD will very likely show that neither artist who calls himself "Mobonix" passes the notability criteria.

I am proposing that the Mauricelwhite, Iammobonix, and Markwinters1 accounts be blocked from the project for this level of disruption and clear disregard of Wikipedia policies and guidelines all to further his (or their) real world legal battle. After the AFD runs its course, we should very likely salt the page to prevent any further disruption.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I went ahead and blocked Markwinters1, as I see at least one of his edit summaries of crossing the line of NLT. I'll take a look at the rest. Of course, I suspect autoblock will mean they won't be able to log in anyway. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I bopped the rest too. Too close to NLT, and obviously not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment), might it not also be reasonable to delete the page in question, put up a notice on the page that says something to the nature of "due to an ongoing legal battle over the trademark of this name, this title has been locked until said battle has concluded." and full protect the page, semi-protect the talk page to prevent spamming of anon edit requests as surely once the dispute is over it will be notable enough for someone with an account in good standing to notice and notify someone that the dispute is over. It could even be noted on the talk page that evidence of the dispute being over will need to be sent to Wikimedia OTRS and make protecting the page be an office action or something. I'm not sure of the process on how to go about that, but surely someone here does. Technical 13 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipeia has no obligation (to my knowlage) to have the page listed be about the trademark owner and therefore has no reason to care about the external legal battle. There is no reason to delete the page for that reason. It is looking like the page will be deleted and WP:SALTed for notability reasons. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:32, 23 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.

Self Reporting for WP:CIVIL issues

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 a Talk page discussion I "turned to personal attacks" and was unable to "communicate civilly" per Kahastok. Since the topic in question is inherently volatile, and in the interest of keeping that discussion on-track and avoiding it being derailed into accusations about my behavior, I am preemptively reporting myself here for sanction. I have also taken the step of independently shutting down a RfC I posted in that thread to solicit input so the reviewing admin can more easily digest the history of my behavior. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Diffs, please, of any offensive edits? Drmies (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Except to my comment that I would self-report myself, I stopped all edits once Kahastok notified me I had "turned to personal attacks" so the above-linked version should reflect the totality of the exchange. Without making excuses, I would just say in possible mitigation of my punishment, that English is not my first language and it's possible I meant to communicate something other than the personal attacks I made against Kahastok. As I have never been blocked before I would like to respectfully request my block be limited to 3-7 days. BlueSalix (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to disappoint you, but "I respect your right to respond in monologue format" and "I need you to dial-it down just a little, please" aren't really blockable (I'm skipping the erroneous hyphen in "dial-it", which also isn't really blockable), in my opinion. Per WP:INVERSEBOOMERANG I looked at your opponent's comments also, and found nothing there that requires any intervention. I invite a second and third opinion, of course, from other admins. Thank you and, again, sorry, but I can't block you for any of this. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. Nothing to be done here. The fact you identified things were going down a bad path and you stopped when you realizes says good things. At this point any block seems like it would be punitive not preventative. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to say beyond, "Take a break. Do something else. de-stress." Dlohcierekim 00:59, 24 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.

Bad deletions, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and Personal attacks by admin Jni

A couple days back, while reviewing articles submitted for translation, I came across Yosorejo, written in Indonesian, which I had to delete as a copyvio. Once the deletion log came up, I saw that Jni had deleted another version of the article (also in Indonesian, though not a copyvio) just a day previously as "patent nonsense" under the CSD criteria. As G1 specifically excludes foreign-language text, I found this improper, and thus I posted on Jni's talk page and asked him/her to reread WP:CSD. The reply started with "You don't have a clue" and went downhill from there, and in his/her closing sentence Jni said that CSD A1 had been meant (which does not explicitly mention foreign languages in that section, though there is a disclaimer elsewhere on the page).

Assuming good faith, I went to WT:CSD to see if the people who frequent that page thought that making foreign language pages explicitly exempt from A1, in the section about that criteria, would be beneficial. Several users expressed the opinion that Jni's deletion was out of policy, and posted as such to his/her talk page. Jni's responses include "Stop being a whiny bitch", and claims that people expressing concern over his/her deletions are "crazy" and that those who write in foreign languages on the English Wikipedia are "stupid" (with expressing concerns over Jni's deletions "a waste of time").

Jni has also fallen back on the number of deletions he/she has made, starting with "I could not have done 23000+ deletions without your expert advice", and continuing with "Suggest you guys do 10000 deletions each, instead of whining on my talk page, and then lets compare if you get your erroneous deletion percentage smaller than mine." (also note the edit summary there; concerns over Jni's performance are apparently "this trite") and positioning the number of deletions as a requirement for commenting on deletion policy. This seems very exclusivist, almost as bad as "who are you mere mortals to question me?". Though Jni's commitment to patrolling the CSD backlog should be commended, I think that he/she does not realize that - should his/her judgement be questioned - such a large number of deletions (and thus, possible errors) means a lot more work for the community to go through.

I quickly went through the most recent thousand deletions by Jni (efforts which Jni likened to "collecting your own urine into bottles, and then sorting the bottles by color") and found several further deletions (Petra Gregov, Croatian article also deleted as "patent nonsense"; Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shirawhite/sandbox, deleted as a test page; Paramjit singh (Honey mavi), deleted as a test page; and angerism, deleted as vandalism) which were given the wrong rationale. DESiegel found several further improper deletions, including Columbusplein (deleted as "clearly made up", despite several sources pointing to such a thing existing, AFD would have been better), Matt shultz (an attempt to make a redirect which failed, and was deleted instead of being fixed), and Nonghanvadara (deleted as not having enough context, despite the context being perfectly clear).

This suggests that there is a pattern of poor deletions here, and as shown Jni is not taking constructive criticism well. Thus, is it possible to topic ban Jni from speedy deletions, or at the very least make him/her recognize that some of his/her deletions were improper? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't examined the relevant arguments here regarding deletion policy issues in depth, but my first impression is that the stuff Jni was deleting is largely junk that's not worth arguing about. Obviously, conversations get heated and degenerate, and unpleasant things get said, and sometimes that's okay and forgivable. But "You don't have a clue." is almost never an appropriate way to start a conversation. Gamaliel (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone's argued that most of these should have been kept, just that they should not have been speedy deleted (under those criteria or otherwise). Angerism (a neologism with some online currency) and Nonghanvadara (apparently a family name) in particular should certainly have been brought to AFD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• My more detailed review of deletion log entries is at User:DESiegel/Review of selected deletions by User:Jni. DES ^(talk) 00:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• I found this comment already linked above, to be grossly uncivil and far out of proportion to the tone and content of the comments made to Jni. DES ^(talk) 00:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• One comment, just one: I happened upon the discussion related to Columbusplein, and opined on Jni's talk page. I agree that A11 is not the best rationale, but G11 certainly applies. One could argue that A11 (which was added by Jni--the nominator offered only G11) is in reference to the content, much of which was in fact sort of made up: a bunch of boloney about a micronation in De Baarsjes, a neighborhood in Amsterdam-West, for which some kind of reference was included (hence my "sort of made up"--it sort of is and it sort of isn't). So Columbusplein as a place (it's a real square) certainly exists, but the micronation "Columbusplein", and the article written to promote it, is a bunch of crap. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Another troubling comment that I've just spotted in the edit linked to by DES above is "Sometimes the logged reason is wrong simply because [the deleting admin] trusted the tagging user too much.". Regardless of who placed the AfD tag it is the responsibility of the deleting admin to ensure that the page meets the CSD criteria it was tagged for in every single case without exception. If it does not meet the tagged criteria, for any reason, the deleting admin may not speedy delete it under that criterion. They may optionally speedy delete it under a different criterion if it meets those requirements.
  As I commented in the thread at WT:CSD, an admin is not expected to be right 100% of the time, but they are required to respond to good faith concerns that people have with their actions and modify their behaviour to line up with community expectations. It is the combination of speedy deletions that are explicitly against the CSD policy, repeated deletions with wrong criteria and refusal to engage with the community that make me believe Jni should not be speedy deleting anything. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

<<ec>>

• • User:Thryduulf, if the "wrong tagging by user arriving to deletion log" is such a problem, I can start just writing free-form entries to the deletion log. That way the problematic, to some users, classification A1 vs A11 vs G14 problem never appears. Also, what feedback I have failed to listen? The one that is actually incorrect w/ deletion policies? I believe I have by now addressed every single "wrongly deleted" article that has been pointed to me on my talk or elsewhere in related discussions, can you please point me to any that I have failed to reply to? My talk page habits are indeed pushy and brusque, developed so after years of dealing with trolls, sockpuppeteer and vandals, and I should tone down some of my comments, I agree with that part. jni (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• User:Gamaliel, you summarized this best. Indeed everything I have deleted is just junk. You could overturn some of my deletions because of technicalities, but why bother if not just want to stir more drama and heated discussions? Thanks for your feeback! jni (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Would anyone care to notify Jni of this discussion? I see no notice on his talk page. Dlohcierekim 00:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have told Jni that I think they are suffering from burnout and recommended a Wikibreak. They seemed receptive to that suggestion. I think that will probably suffice. Dlohcierekim 00:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jni was notified of this discussion by Crisco 1492 at 23:56 [68]. This was placed at the end of the relevant discussion section and not in it's own new section though which is possibly why you didn't spot it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. I was just about to point that out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hopefully this won't be necessary, but the prior consensus is that the community can't topic ban admins from what is an essential admin function. So the only solution for that is voluntary resignation or desysop by ArbCom if the troubles continue. Frankly, the borderline bad deletions are less worrisome than the "conduct unbecoming". This is unfortunately very similar to the Kafziel case. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, wait a minute - Couldn't we topic-ban from speedy deletes but still permit deletes elsewhere, such as deletion discussions? Ego White Tray (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Ego's suggestion is rather what I had in mind. It's been done before. After passing my RFA I had to voluntarily avoid CSDs for a bit to better understand the criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
      • There was a longer but otherwise similar discussion on AN this past autumn about imposing a similar sanction on another admin. The consensus was that only ArbCom can do something like that. [69]. You can't community-restrict how an admin would user their tools as that's a partial desysop. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no intention to "resign" over some technicalities concerning my deletion log summaries and classification of speedy deletion categories therein. I might take a Wikibreak indeed, I was considering it before Dlohcierekim suggested it as well as part of his helpful and kind feedback to me. user:Crisco 1492 wants to stir drama for some reason but I have no intention to continue any communications with him, other than minimally necessary for routine administration and editing the encyclopedia. His unsolicitated "constructive criticism" is largely factually incorrect and does not demonstrate any great understanding of deletion policies, i.e., he has been complaining about things like me deleting some newbie editing experiments consisting of less than 20 bytes of broken wiki-text, that every admin should know are speedily deletable. I do happen to believe that admins who have less than 10000 deletion entries in the log are inexperienced in that area of Wikipedia maintenance. This is my personal opinion that I'm entitled to have, even if said inexperienced admins don't like it and start causing drama and whining about my "wrong" beliefs. The accusation that I have failed to respond good-faith feedback about my deletions is bizarre; everyone reviewing my talk page can see that I handle restoration requests from regular editors promptly when there was some error or when the article is otherwise salvageable. Finally, I want to remind everyone that to best of my knowledge, exactly zero of my 24000+ deletions in Wikipedia has been overturned in WP:DRV. Obviously you can find actual errors, given the voluminous number of deletions, if you seek long enough, but doing so would be just making a POINT. jni (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for proving my point with that ABF (seriously? I have better things than to cause drama, especially with an editor whom I've never met) and strange inclination that I, quoting the CSD criteria as currently written, am less in touch with current deletion policy than yourself (despite several regular editors and admins telling you otherwise). There are two editors with serious concerns over your deletions, and even more concerned over your replies to these concerns. If you've read our posts, you'll note that not all concerns are regarding the rationale you've used, but rather the fact that these articles were (speedy) deleted at all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
      • If you've read our posts, you'll note that not all concerns are regarding the rationale you've used, but rather the fact that these articles were (speedy) deleted at all. And if you have read my replies, I have repeatedly answered to exactly that point. If the two editors continue to have concerns with me deleting articles that contain single internal link, or single external link, or article like UnKnoWn??, then we should worry about their judgemental errors, not mine. jni (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
        • My main deletion concern, and one that is not justified by the current criteria, is the Indonesian village. You have yet to admit that you were wrong in that instance, which is concerning. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Can I just remind folks that the fundamental question here is not so much the deletions (which maybe arguable) but the total incivility demonstrated by J. from the start, which is inarguable. Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The fundamental question seems to be different for different editors here. I lost track already, what charges I just reply to really, given the large number of totally bogus allegations concerning speedy deletion and classification of deleted content. As I have pointed out before, I have no intent communicating with that one certain editor, either civilly or incivilly, who has been threatening to drag this case through the drama court system of Wikipedia, and has started to do so already. jni (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I asked you to redact your incivility. You did not. You instead ignored my post and went on editing and deleting. I already gave you a warning, as did others. Now reap the rewards. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
      • So you admit that you started this ANI thread as a retaliation, including your bogus allegations of "bad deletions" along with your other grudge? I read your warning and ignored it because I don't want to have any dealings with you at all. jni (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
        • What retaliation? I gave you several chances to recognise your errors, but you have not, nor have you taken back your personal attacks. Instead, you are making new ones. "Process wonks" indeed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
          • If "process wonk" is incivility, then so be it. The talk-page editing gang of that page is the problem here, as user User:DESiegel invited them on this ANI drama of yours as well. The gang is shocked that not all editors agree with their pompous rules regarding mandatory and rigid CSD-category classification in deletion log entries. I have not made any incivil comments towards you since your edits to my talk page. Also, I'm not going to discuss trivial matters like editing history of Yosorejo article with you, as we both know what is the story there, so there is nothing to explain to anyone. You are not a new user complaining about bad admin doing naughty things (because they don't understand why some admin action happened), but instead are just wasting everyone's time with your own battlefield attitude and frivolous "bad deletions" reporting here. jni (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
            • "process wonk" is not exactly friendly, but pretty mild IMO. "You must be crazy" and comparing serious concerns (even if you think they are ill-advised) about following deletion policy to creating and sorting a urine collection is uncivil, in my view. I wouldn't have started this ANI thread at this time. But once it was started, I thought that those who had commented, in any direction, in the WT:CSD thread should be neutrally notified of the existence of this discussion. I don't think that the letter of the CSDs are "pompous rules". They are one of the few areas of Wikipedia policy that is prescriptive rather than descriptive. People doing CAT:CSD patrol, especially a lot of CAT:CSD work, as you do, Jni, ought to know and respect that, in my view. Admins ought to respond civilly even to fairly foolish inquiries about their admin actions. Admins ought to welcome additional information that might illuminate an action that they took without such info. Probably none of that rises to the level where I would expect Arbcom to take note of it, (although a current case suggests that if carried to an extreme they might) but I hope that you will consider the genuine and serious reasons behind these concerns. DES ^(talk) 16:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jni:<<ec>> In the kindest way possible, I'd like to say "please do stop". You are digging yourself in deeper and then burying yourself. Agree, the CSD's are arguable. The rationale need not be strictly correct as long as the thing was speediable. The problem is Jni's behavior is increasingly fraught. I agree that this AN/I thread posting was a bit reactive, but we are here now. I can only say, perhaps louder. J'ni needs to take some sort of break. J'ni, please do stop trying to argue with people. It's only making this worse. J'ni agrees a break is desirable, let's try that as a remedy for now. Dlohcierekim 13:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but if I take a wikibreak, then the next charge against me might be the "admin is failing to respond and explain his actions" tactic that is often used by vexatious litigants in the Wikipedia drama court system. Also, I am seriously worried that key deletion policy pages are edited by admins who fail to see why UnKnoWn?? was a valid speedy deletion. Then the same gang starts to review admin actions of other admins, we are in mess soon. jni (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of your deletions seem fine. There is absolutely no need to submit a page like UnKnoWn?? to a process more complicated than the delete button. However, poor deletion summaries are not good. They should give a good answer to the question "why was this page deleted?", and citing the wrong CSD gives people the wrong clue. Better to just state your reason in plain words (even if it isn't a WP:CSD). As deletion hides pages from non-admins, the summaries should be good for transparency reasons. A couple of errors in a thousand deletions are not a big deal, but you should try to improve that if you can. —Kusma (t·c) 14:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jni, please can you explain comments like this? The comment "we have plenty of idiots as admins" was not appropriate at all, but especially not at another, wholly uninvolved user's RFA. Poor form. GiantSnowman 13:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh no, editor expresses obnoxious and wrong opinion, let's call in the firing squad! The meaning of course is whimsical way of saying that the candidate would be no worse than the current lot of admins. I did check his editing history first of course, and it is typical for me to support candidates in RfA, sometimes even marginal candidates who are almost certain not to pass. I very seldomly oppose anyone there. jni (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • You do realize that that was not the best rationale you could have given, considering how highly visible you are right now. Right? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned that jni has responded with such a lack of civility, has failed to recognise any fault in speedies that are contrary to explicit policy (treating anything not in English as A1), and has dismissed the views of anyone without a huge deletion log. The principles of openness here mean that even non-admins are welcome to contribute views, AIUI. I'd like to see action, preferably voluntary and with minimum drama, that addresses these points. There's a wide range of such action available, of course. SamBC(talk) 14:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is going from bad to worse, "worse" being all kinds of snarky commentary and outright insults, and rhetorical slipperiness about what precisely the charge is (there is no doubt, there are two, at least). That "taking a break" would be seen as "being unresponsive" is silly, but before any breaks are taken there needs to be a. some serious consideration of the CSD rationale complaints (history proves that admins are expected to be able to explain, just ask Fastily) and b. a realization that admins are expected to behave with at least a modicum of decorum--I can't even smell the faint scent of ancient decorum in Jni's comments here. Jni was warned to stop digging: that was sound advice. Keep digging and you won't find China; you'll find a desysop procedure of one kind or another. Remember, we're supposed to be a blue wall of invincible admins. Wait, no--but this is true: when a whole bunch of admins suggest you're doing something wrong, perhaps you're doing something wrong. Now, I'm sorry, but I gotta go and check my collection of urine bottles, to see if it's anything but piss and vinegar, and I suggest you do the same. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I can't say I've ever run into this admin until this thread ... but let me just say, he makes me look like a saint. Perhaps we need a bluelink at Saint Panda ES&L 17:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Neither had I. His/her RFA was quite a while ago, in 2005. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, ESL will be mentored by Jni, and vice versa. If either chooses to end the relationship, they must seek to regain their admin tools via the usual means.

• Support, as proposer. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Is that single sentence about mentoring the proposal? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Sexually Explicit comment - In Page History

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 already reported here about usage of sexually abusive terms (vandalism) there in the pages Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club Excel and Edu-Clubs. Although the edits were more or less reverted immediately by some bots and users, the very same terms remain there in the edit summary section which is there for public view for days. Some administrators had hidden the same from the Edu-Clubs page but the edit history of the Wikipedia Club Excel still show that explicit comment over there for the last 20 days.

Another similar case happened a couple of times 1 2 in the Excel Central School page yesterday by persumably the same user, but with different temporary IP. Here again both the edits were immediately reverted by some users, but the history page still displays the abusive terms for public for the last 24 hours.

All these acts of vandalism are done in the pages related to the institutions and initiatives of Excel Group of Schools. Since the Annual celebrations of the institutions is nearing, the web traffic for those pages are expected to go high comparatively in the following days. It may spoil the reputation of both the Excel Group of Schools and that of Wikipedia. So I seek some administrative actions immediately.

IMHO semi-protection is the ideal move for the following pages

• Excel Central School
• Excel Global School
• Edu-Clubs
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club Excel

Three of the above mentioned pages four pages were vandalized more than once in the last 20 days; The edit summaries (in the page history) still display abusive terms. So I request some administrators to immediately intervene and do the needful. I also request some administrators to maintain the pages in the watch-list for some time. Thanks - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Two instances of vandalism in a month-ish time frame is generally not a rate of vandalism that would call for page protection - we prefer to keep the rate of protected pages as low as we reasonably can, since this is intended to be an open project. It's unclear to me exactly what the problem is here...is is the use of the word "sex"? If so, yeah, that happens sometimes. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" is often "the encyclopedia kids like to type 'sex' and 'poo' into", and if we nuked every edit that did that we'd never have time to do anything else. If there's something else going on here (is the vandalism degrading particular people? I don't have any familiarity with Indian words/names, so the only meaning I'm able to get from the vandalism is "it says 'sex'"), then those individual edits can be revision deleted, but again, if it's only happened once or twice, it's unlikely the page needs to be protected, as opposed to just a revdelete and maybe the offending IPs being blocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) How is the lone word "sex" a sexually explicit comment? It is surely inappropriate, but doesn't need revdelete yet, unless there's a hidden meaning that I'm missing. Epicgenius (talk)

Perhaps, there are implications here that violate cultural taboos that our (predominately) western sensibilities are not sensitive too. I assume that the edits is questions are supposed to mean of "X had sex with B", which, owing to the fact that this is Wikiproject with real, young people involved, might be deletable. Note: I Have No Idea What I'm Talking About™. -- John Reaves 03:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I googled one of the names and it is a person involved with the school, so I rev deleted the vandalism. Gamaliel (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The People mentioned there were [redacted]. The edit summary from the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club Excel had been removed but still the edit history of Excel Central School show the same comment. Please remove it too immediately. I'll detail my view which leads to seek page protection afterwards. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to be too specific about the targets of the vandalism. I've redacted your comment accordingly and I will remove the vandalism. Gamaliel (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting those terms.

The reason for which i requested semi-protection immediately are

1. The edits came several times with in a span of 22 days across three of the four Excel Institutions pages in Wikipedia.

2. The annual celebrations of the institutions are nearing and the web-traffic is likely to go many-fold higher in the comming days.

3. All those edits does not came from one single IP; but from many temporary IPs. (i.e) every time you log in you will get different temporary IP. So blocking the IP won't help.

4. The people whose names mentioned in the edits were the higher most officials of those institutions.

5. Foremost the usage of the term 'SEX' (i.e) X had sex with Y is far more offensive in this part of the world than in the west. So, say the vast majority of the people, of this locality those who log onto the pages related to a person or institution here in Wikipedia and finds (at the time the vandalized edit is being shown) such explicit (though culturally subjective) comments they have an unconscious mental framework of relating the content in the edit directly to the reputation of the subject, totally unaware of the vulnerability of free-editable contents on web to rude and irresponsible individual behaviors. The kind of impact, the mere usage of the term 'SEX' with connecting reputed personnel, create in the western community vs it create here are poles apart.

So IMHO semi-protection is the only and inevitable move which suits the situation. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, I just moved that club to the proper title, Excel Wikipedia Club, which must have been what the creator intended, if only for administrative purposes. Someone could nominate that for A7 speedy deletion, rather than start an MfD. Just a thought. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• ... and I've gone ahead and A7ed it, seeing as how there's nothing there indicating any sort of importance (just a verbose summary of the club's history/organization and a link to the Tamil Wikipedia). Nothing more to see here. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm wierd bug/I messed up

I tried to nominate Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Club_Excel for deletion, but it seems to be messed up. I think someone made it in a wierd namespace. Can someone with more experence take a look? Sorry if I messed up. CombatWombat42 (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's handled now--see above. No worries. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding Wikipedia Club Excel: Please revert the deletion of the Project Page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club Excel. The Club already had a Project page in Tamil Wikipedia and it was from there it was translated to English in English Wikipedia. And this was cited from leading newspapers from India. If asked I'll explain- Vaikunda Raja (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Whatever another wiki has is not really relevant here. I moved the completely misplaced article (ironic that that article would be so incorrectly placed) to Excel Wikipedia Club, and Kinu deleted it under WP:A7, which I agree with completely: see above. Drmies (talk) 05:46, 24 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.

Revdel and cleanup please

[70], and related. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Fucking classic. The geezer's on drugs man. PMSL. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, and oversight requested just in case there aren't any oversighters watching this. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What exactly was he selling?! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Other people's credit card details. It might be worth alerting the WMF legal team about this one. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, I've now done so. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Blimey. Yes good move! Hopefully they can still get hold of the deleted post as evidence? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course they can. WP:REVDEL makes it invisible to normal editors, WP:OVERSIGHT makes it invisible to everyone but a very small subset of people, including WMF legal ES&L 13:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

For future reference, Andy Dingley, please don't post revdel/oversight requests like this on one of the most-watched pages on the site. For that, we have WP:RFO and #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Last time I went near there I was told to fuck off because I wasn't an admin and I should get a grown up to help me first. Today I'm told that I'm on drugs. Way to go guys, I just hope they're your credit cards. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As far as the "drugs" comment, I think Fortuna was referring to the user you reported, not you. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Went near where, Andy? That's not a response that should ever have from the oversight team in response to an oversight request, and I rather doubt that it's what you were actually told. The only case I can think of that you would have been told something to the effect of "go away" is if you had been sitting in #wikipedia-en-revdel with no request, just to observe - only admins are allowed to idle in there, to preserve confidentiality of revdeleted edits as much as possible. But anyway, to be clear: if you (or anyone else) finds private/personal/legally damaging information that needs to be hidden, you absolutely should contact the oversight team (or, in a pinch to get it dealt with quickly, the -revdel IRC channel), as your first step. Noticeboards won't get a quick response, but they will get the problematic content viewed many, many more times than it should. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

For someone who does not use IRC, what would be the best place to report such? an email address? which one, if so? DES ^(talk) 19:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

When you open an edit window in ANI or AN, a big pink bar is visible at the top which reads

Emergencies If you are reporting a serious threat of violence, suicide or death threat, bomb threat, etc., please also email [email protected] with the relevant diffs.

Oversight & Revision Deletion If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here. If you need an edit or log entry to be deleted or suppressed (oversighted), or for any privacy-related matter, please e-mail the relevant diffs internally via this form or to [email protected]. If a suppression action is pending, consider asking an administrator privately to delete the revision in the meantime. Revision deletion may also be requested privately via IRC: #wikipedia-en-revdel connect

Blackmane (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@User:Fluffernutter - if that's the only protection against passers-by seeing these supposedly "secret" reports, then presumably the channel should not be advertised? Or, tbh, exist?

@User:Andy Dingley - I've used WP:RFO several dozen times over several years, and I think I got one "thank you but no it's ok in this instance in my personal opinion" reply, and one "other" reply. (I may be misremembering about the latter.) The rest were "thank you and we suppressed it". I would love to learn why it's so hard for you to use an email address, or if you got different stats to mine. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's actually easier than it sounds to wrangle, Demiurge. Using the cloak system, we can verify the identity of any admin who wants to idle in the channel and give them the appropriate user rights; then all we have to do is keep an eye out for uncloaked/unopped users (because usually they're there to ask for a revdelete!). It's not 100% ironclad, but nothing is, and the tradeoff for all our preferred reporting routes is that they keep public viewing of revdeletable or oversightable edits to a minimum while still allowing easy reporting. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so that's it! You just allow people who already have cloaks and are admins. Thus all problems are resolved. The paranoidnice fellow above who thinks you are out to destroy him, will find this reassuring. All is well. Good luck! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• For what its worth, it's not like people can hop onto #en-admins to request revdel... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

two "new editors" at Georgism

Two people have just made their "first and only" edits at Talk:Georgism; User:Divadyendis and User:NielsCharlier. I am AGF to a fault, but is there any reason why this article attracts such? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

:Remember, let them know they're being discussed here._Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The first editor's contribution makes it look like they're deeply unfamiliar with the conventions of discussion. Maybe that could have been discussed with the editor directly or on the article talk page? The second one could be vote sockpuppetry but I don't know what anyone can do here beyond noting the possibility as you've already done. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The first editor's comment should be reverted or additions removed in some way, of course, as they are adding words within other people's comments. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet, this happens to be the first edit. Actually, I have done many edits on wikipedia but never under an account. NielsCharlier (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Help on who decides "fair use" and the "no equivalent" policy for pictures on Wikipedia?

A couple of users working in tandem are deleting media with tenacity, arbitrarily deciding what is the policy:

User1 contrib: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nigel_Ish

User2 contrib: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Werieth

The question is, are they allowed to do this?

Thank you. --99.244.158.43 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The reporting IP has been blocked for violation of the three-revert rule at Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Fairly clear violation of WP:NFCC. Usage of non-free flags in {{Flag icon}} isnt allowed. Werieth (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, and we all are required to remove non-free images from articles for which there is no fair use rationale. Please see also our non-free content criteria that have been set by the Wikimedia Foundation. In short: All images that have not been released under a free licence must have a rationale for each article wherein they are used to explain why the particular article would benefit from displaying the image. This excludes spefically the use of non-free images in galleries of for simple illustrations where the reader can be informed by a descriptive text alone. And the removal of non-free images from articles without a fair use rationale is totally valid to avoid copyright infringements. De728631 (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I take it that the plaintiff means "working in tandem" in a bad way. I like to think that sometimes we get it right, this collaborative editing stuff. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:190.163.253.147

The anonymous user User:190.163.253.147 may need a little encouragement to provide less antagonistic edit summaries. I am increasingly uncomfortable with this tone, despite me bringing this to the user's attention. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, if I may, perhaps you should just simply look the other way. The user makes (mostly) helpful edits, and none of their edit summaries seem to be directed at a person. Sure, they contain some strong expressions, but that's nicely balanced by the somewhat passive-aggressive sounding "may need a little encouragement". Encouragement? A block or a stick? No. Their edits are fine and their summaries not over the top. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
• I did, however, give them a stern friendly warning. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ooh, so stern ...

Hey, if you are less critical in your edit summaries some people will be less critical of you. Jus' saying. Otherwise, keep up the good work, Drmies (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC) — [71]

... you beast ... rowr ... [72] ...

Meanwhile ...

190.163.253.147 (talk) (the number of profession [sic] webcomic artists is irrelevant to this article. also rm pov, who the fuck feels the need to take it upon themselves to decide what people think of the facts? just state them. and rm excessive detail.) — [73]

Personally, I find flippantly flinging "fuck" around in an edit summary to be disruptive, antagonistic, inappropriate and fucking rude.

Looking through 190.163.253.147's contributions I think one could argue for a pattern of actively attempting to incite and intimidate but perhaps I'm overly cynical and it's simply a case of social ignorance and emotional indifference. Regardless, either way, I feel that it sets up an unpleasant inflammatory atmosphere.

Dude (dudette?) seems to be coming off as a WP:Dick, regardless of their intentions. It would be nice if an admin with some ... err ... if someone with authority and experience would muster up some direct phrasing and let them know about it. Judging by the tone and timbre of their output, I'd guess that they're unlikely to pick up on subtle input.

Please. I suspect that I'm not the only editor who'd appreciate seeing fewer glib aspersions and snide rhetorical questions in their watchlist. Or perhaps they could at least be prodded to cut out the fucking expletives, eh?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm, after reviewing my preceding post—from last night—in the light of day I fear I may have come off somewhat WP:Dick-ish myself ... probably could have presented things with a bit less jaded sarcasm. Please pardon me if I've been overly crass.

On a more proactive note, any suggestions on how one would go about addressing this IP editor's chronically abrasive edit summaries? They've already received nudges from multiple admins and are continuing unabated. If it was someone 'blowing-it-up' with a single extreme instance, I know there are relevant boards (like WP:ANI) on which to post. But what of this IP editor's behaviour? I liken it to regularly sprinkling sand in the gears rather than directly busting things. How may one address such?

I hesitate, as a non-admin, to directly address such an abrasive IP editor. Particularly one who has already failed to respond to multiple admins. I find what's left—in articles—after some of the IP user's deletions to be fractured and stilted but hesitate to attempt repairs whilst they're being repeatedly allowed to pass unilateral judgements through terse abrasive edit summaries.

Sigh ...

--Kevjonesin (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

p.s.– Tagging The JPS and Drmies to insure that y'all are aware of my additions here. --Kevjonesin (talk)

I appreciate the tag and both posts. Yes, both. It's easy to get angry here, especially with rude and uncooperative editors. I'm an admin, sure, but that doesn't necessarily make me good at solving these kinds of problems. A couple of fucks here and there, well, there's broad consensus that that's not blockable, and your criticism of me (of course I'm being a bit flippant with "stern") isn't all that dickish, so don't worry.

A few things. IP editors have the same rights or privileges as we do, so let's set that aside. Second, I didn't exactly appreciate the tone of the person reporting this, as you saw: 'twas a bit patronizing. Third, civility blocks are controversial and I don't like making them. Fourth, if things get really disruptive, then we'll take action, but in my opinion this wasn't very disruptive yet. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose one man's nip-it-in-the-bud may easily be viewed by others as 'arbitrary censorship' so I understand hesitancy to impose sanctions. But perhaps some firm blunt mentoring might be in order. Something which makes clear that they're 'riding the line' and concurrently establishes a record that such warnings and explanations have been made. Seems such might clarify and smooth things at some future point should cause arise to address behavior in a more formal manner.

Oh, and, yes, I know IP editors have the same official status as anyone else. It's just easier for me to type "the IP editor" than a long string of numbers. I tend to internally voice as I type and "190.163.253.147" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

Speaking of questions of status ... In browsing this archive, I happened into some discussions questioning whether a certain admin—and prolific article creator—was benefiting from a sliding-scale-of-justice. In light of such, Drmies, your pairing of ", perhaps you should just simply look the other way." with "The user makes (mostly) helpful edits," raises some concern. To what degree do feelings about the quality and quantity of an editors contributions weight your administrative opinions regarding acceptable community conduct?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Further thoughts; aka a break in a long thread

I'm a 'big boy' and am known to throw the f-bomb around a fair bit myself IRL. But context matters. I'd have likely let it slide without much notice if I'd come across such as some venting in a talk page entry. But I found it to be unnecessary distracting cruft in an edit summary—along with the rhetorical questions and such—which all strikes me as painfully ironic if not blatantly hypocritical as many of the edits are addressing perceived extraneous cruft in article text. Such—taken collectively—may be seen to trend towards a unilateral judge-jury-and-executioner perspective. Would be hard to argue that it's inviting patient temperate discourse and inclusive consensus building, right?

I suppose as at this point—as it's not yet built to a matter requiring penalty—rather than trying to enlist the interest of those more empowered than myself I might as well bell-the-cat and address 190.163.253.147 myself. Perhaps he's not always so ferocious as he appears in edit summaries ([74] <wink>) and is simply unaware of how he may be coming off to others. It's likely not occurred to him that he might come off as threatening and trigger concerns of bullying in some of his peers.

I think talking things through here in advance has allowed me to calm down and gain a better understanding of my own reactions. Rather than reiterating I'll go ahead and direct 190.163.253.147 to this thread so he can catch up respond reflect on the conversation.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Many years ago when I first edited wikipedia, there was a nascent culture of quality. But people didn't realise how much it needed protecting. People thought that it was much more important for people simply to edit, than for there to be incentives for the edits to be good. Everybody assumed that "bad" edits would get corrected by "good" editors. But there were way too many bad editors, way too much power was given to people who had never and would never write a featured article, and the culture of quality was lost.

So now you have an encyclopaedia where you only have to browse through a few pages before you come across something with extremely elementary mistakes. And some of these elementary mistakes actually end up infecting the encyclopaedia like a virus. So you'll see people copying chunks of text verbatim from a source instead of expressing concepts in their own words, you'll see citations put before facts instead of after them, and you'll see people expressing a judgement about facts instead of simply stating them.

Now if you care about quality, this will make you angry. And if you edit anonymously, you'll also suffer all of the pointless shitty behaviour towards IPs that a large subgroup of editors like to indulge in. You'll have been accused of vandalism for changing the word "explained" to "said", you'll have had people reverting your edits with the summary "rv IP edits", you'll have people simply undoing your work with no explanation. I could find you a hundred pointless reverts of my edits and a hundred absurd post-hoc attempts to justify them, if I had the energy to track down all the IPs I've edited from.

When you get constantly attacked, regardless of whether you leave the sweetest loveliest edit summaries you can imagine or if you tell a few people to fuck off every now and then, why make the effort to be nice? Ultimately I find it quite funny that it's considered a much worse offence to say "fuck" and be exasperated than it is to not understand the basics of encyclopaedia writing.

Until there is a culture of quality, and a culture of actually reading edits before attacking them, I think you can expect intemperate edit summaries from me. If more editors were like Drmies, one of a tiny, tiny minority who actually understand the concept of "assume good faith" and consistently do so, you'd have a far less dysfunctional community. Whenever I encounter editors like that, I immediately feel bad for being as aggressive as I am in correcting mistakes, and I try to be a little milder. But sadly it's usually a very short time before I encounter someone else like this guy. Sadly his type are the overwhelming majority and I'm not prepared to tiptoe around being nice to people whose ultimate interest is not improving the encyclopaedia. 190.163.253.147 (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you consider yourself to be 'a-heroic-defender-of-the-wiki' — ('but you're not the only one' <wink>)[75]. It's an intoxicating idea/ideal.

However, one may wish to be careful — i.e. 'full-of-care', for one's fellow editors, not just one's edits — for wise-man-say "when you remove your belt to slap another your pants may drop and show your ass".

'Lord knows' I understand getting frustrated with en:Wikipedia culture. It's a horribly human undertaking. That said, perhaps there are better times and places to vent than edit summaries. Might I suggest that you take the cussing and rhetorical questions to your own user space (User:190.163.253.147 (talk)) rather than pissing in/on the community edit summary feeds? Or perhaps save it for talk pages? It comes off as horribly hypocritical to bitch about article cruft while simultaneously crufting up your own edit summaries with pissy rhetorical questions and insults.

See also: WP:EDSUM.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Another example

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=593538075 --Niemti (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Niemti, is it safe to assume that by posting the link in your preceding comment you are noting displeasure with 190.163.253.147's tone—in edit summaries—as well? To me, that one actually comes off as direct name calling. Is that also how you took it?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course. Also, repeated deleting of sourced content instead of improving/copy-editing. --Niemti (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

And https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis&oldid=593791360&diff=prev --Niemti (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis&oldid=593796336&diff=prev --Niemti (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I agree that reverting without explanatory edit summaries is poor form. Making most any edit without an explanatory summary is poor form, IMHO, Niemti. That said, the IP editor was clearly doing so as well and yet railing at you about it. I don't count random insult as explanation, they are however uncivil, inflammatory, and distracting.

While the editor's IP address changed partway through the exchange, I think it's fair to conclude from style and context that it was the same person.

I was really hoping they'd tone it down a bit ... sigh ... pretty clear they've escalated to more blatant personal attacks instead ...

I'll tag some admins that have recently interacted with the rogue(?) editor on his talk page as they may want to be kept abreast. Perhaps they'll take the situation under-their-wing in some way. Possibly move the thread back to main page for others to be aware of and weigh in on if nothing else.

Tagging: User:JamesBWatson, User:The Rambling Man.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:NinaGreen/Shakespeare authorship

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 very hesitant to bring this issue here, because I am far from sure it is the right venue. However, I am convinced that seeking a third opinion or even dispute resolution with be ineffective. I am currently engaged in an edit war with NinaGreen at Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit, an article about a pamphlet that refers to Shakespeare. Nina keeps adding a sentence attributed to a reliable source, which claims that the pamphlet quotes a line that may come from either an "anonymous" play or Shakespeare's Henry VI. The trouble is that this misrepresents standard scholarship which states that they are the same play. I've tried to explain this on the talk page, but have got nowhere trying to communicate with Nina. Nina is, as far as I know, still topic-banned from "Shakespeare authorship" topics (that is, not articles about Shakespeare's writings as such, but articles about the claim that someone else secretly wrote the plays under his name). This is an area covered by discretionary sanctions. Whether this article comes under that ban or not is debatable. It is not directly about it, but Nina's edit is, IMO, clearly an attempt to introduce authorship doubt by stealth and by systematic misuse of a reliable source. I have genuinely tried to discuss this to work out an acceptable form of words, but Nina has a tendency to "blank" attempts to make connections (You will see what I mean if you read Talk:Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit). Since this involves user conduct, possible topic-ban violation as well as edit-warring, I have brought it here. The actual discussion about the source seems, I would argue, more complex than it is. We should not be creating confusion in readers where none exists. Paul B (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, my understanding is that NinaGreen is still topic-banned from Shakespeare as a whole, as per WP:ARBSAQ#NinaGreen banned. She appealed that topic ban in late 2012, (see here), but that request was declined. Last time this came up was on her talkpage in August 2013, when I had to remind her that her topic ban was still in force, having found that she had been routinely ignoring or at least skirting it. I found her rather reticent back then. The dispute you describe is certainly close enough to the topic to count as a topic ban violation, and seeing that she's quite extensively edit-warring (6R in two days if I counted right?), in a discussion where at least the other side is clearly implying that the issue is actually related to the authorship question – this is definitely not looking good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I shouldn't be topic-banned. Considering the enormous contributions I've made to Wikipedia, for any topic ban to continue is absurd, and the arbitrators should lift it forthwith, and I hope you will request them to do that. Secondly, my earlier request to have the topic ban lifted was not 'declined', as I mentioned to you earlier on my Talk page (and which can be checked in the record of the appeal). Instead, despite unanimous support from the community, and despite the fact that support from the community was still coming in, my appeal was abruptly shut down without explanation by the arbitrators, as the record shows. But more to the point, to include the current discussion in a topic ban would be bizarre. It merely concerns whether or not a particular line in Greene's Groatsworth of Wit occurs in two plays, and whether orthodox scholars are united in their assessment of the relationship between those two plays. I've cited four eminently reliable sources (and could find many more) which state that it's factually correct (1) that the line occurs in both plays, and (2) that four eminently reliable sources state that the relationship between the two plays is unclear. Paul Barlow has chosen, for reasons which are unclear, to contest both the factual statements and the four reliable sources cited in support without adding anything to the article of his own. He has merely repeatedly deleted the factual statements and the four reliable sources cited in support. NinaGreen (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said last August, you are of course free to consider the topic ban absurd, but the fact remains that it is still in force, and it is unreasonable of you to demand that it ought to simply go away on its own when you are not even willing to take the relevant steps to make another request for it yourself. As for the present topic, while the nominal topic of the article as a whole is not directly related to Shakespeare, the passage you were edit-warring over clearly was; add to that that the topic of the Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit is also often cited and discussed in S.A.Q.-related discussions; that makes it fall squarely within the bounds of your topic-ban. Seeing that my gentle reminder of last August seems to have gone unheeded, I'm afraid I'll have to put it more bluntly: you need to keep away from these topics, or the next time you're found doing anything contentious in them will result in a lengthy block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the point in another warning, Fut.Perf.. You were perfectly clear before and it's evident that this user has no intention of complying with the ban. It's equally clear that this is a violation of the ban going on now; even if the Groats-Worth were not, as Gamaliel points out, an important document in Shakespeare historiography, the text NinaGreen has added specifically refers to Shakespeare, a topic from which she is banned. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history, Roscelese, you'll see that I did not add any text which specifically refers to Shakespeare. That text was already in the article. I merely added text which referred to a play entitled The Tragedy of Richard, Duke of York, and added a quote from a reliable source, and then two additional reliable sources. Paul Barlow chose to disagree with those reliable sources, contrary to WP:NOR, and when Paul Barlow could not prevail on the facts, he chose to erroneously raise the issue here as an alleged contravention of a topic ban, which it is not. Yet despite the fact that what I added is not a contravention of a topic ban, I've now been threatened with lengthy blocks by several administrators. Where's the fairness on Wikipedia? NinaGreen (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances it would be unreasonable of me to demand that the topic ban go away without requesting that it be lifted. However my appeal was dealt with extremely unfairly by the arbitrators, as the record shows, which is why I am unwilling to appeal again. Unless, of course it is routine for appeals to be abruptly and without explanation shut down by the arbitrators while support from the community is still coming in, which I hope is not the case, as it would demonstrate a degree of unfairness on Wikipedia which the general public would find abhorrent. As one of the administrators most closely involved in the arbitration, and as an administrator who is well aware of the extent of the contribution I've made to Wikipedia, I feel it's incumbent on you to help me get that topic ban lifted, and I'm asking you to do that. If you won't assist, please put me in contact with someone who will do so. I look forward to hearing from you. Isn't Wikipedia about retaining good editors, particularly female editors, rather than subjecting them to endless 'punishments'? NinaGreen (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If you beleive the arbitrators' decision was unfair, you need to appeal to ArbCom or to Jimbo, not to the community. And I will be entirely blunt: the statement I shouldn't be topic-banned. Considering the enormous contributions I've made to Wikipedia, for any topic ban to continue is absurd, and the arbitrators should lift it forthwith is exactly the sort of thing that, when somebody says it, is a very good sign the ban should NOT be lifted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Bushranger, did you look at my contributions over the past year before making that statement -- almost 28,000 edits on hundreds of different articles, the creation of dozens of new articles, a number of which are very detailed and extremely well-sourced and have been given high ratings on the Wikipedia biography scale by editors who do that sort of thing, close to 50 (I haven't counted recently) articles created or expanded which have been included on DYK on the Wikipedia Main Page over the past year. What is it with Wikipedia when editors who do that sort of thing are threatened by administrators with lengthy blocks for adding factual statements and reliable sources to an article, as happened here today, just because Paul Barlow happens to disagree with those factual statements and reliable sources, contrary to WP:NOR? NinaGreen (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a bit of familiarity with the scholarship in this area. The primary historical and literary importance of Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit is its relationship to Shakespeare and it is a key piece of evidence in the Shakespeare authorship question, so there is absolutely no question that it falls under the scope of the topic ban. Whether or not the topic ban is justified falls beyond the scope of this page. If Nina Green and/or the community feels that the ban is unjustified, the appropriate forum to address that is at ArbCom. If those parties feel ArbCom has acted unfairly, the proper response is to challenge ArbCom through motions or community discussion, not to act as if the topic ban does not exist. Until the topic ban has been challenged or lifted in the appropriate manner, I see no reason that it should not be vigorously enforced by myself or any other administrator. Gamaliel (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel, to claim that every aspect of Groatsworth falls within the topic ban is an absurdity. Groatsworth is a significant work by a significant author of the period, Robert Greene. Groatsworth is only peripherally related to Shakespeare because it is thought that a single phrase ('Shake-scene') in the entire work it is an allusion to him. To claim that Groatsworth is entirely off limits because of a single phrase in it which is thought to allude to Shakespeare demonstrates graphically the perniciousness and Catch-22 aspect of topic bans 'broadly construed'. As for lifting the topic ban, as I've said before, the community did feel the topic ban was unjustified, yet despite total support from everyone in the community who responded, and despite the fact that support from the community was still coming in, my appeal was arbitrarily and abruptly shut down, as anyone can see from the record, which is why I don't wish to repeat the appeal process. The appeal process is demonstrably unfair when something of that nature can happen while community support is still coming in during the appeal. Instead of threatening good editors who have made an enormous contribution to Wikipedia, particularly female editors, whom Wikipedia is making an effort to retain, Gamaliel, why not do something about this injustice? I'm asking you, as well as your fellow administrator Future Perfect, to try to get my original appeal reinstated so that I don't have to go through the entire appeal process from scratch all over again. It would go a long way towards restoring confidence that Wikipedia treats editors fairly. NinaGreen (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

But you weren't writing about any other aspects of Groats-Worth, were you? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact, if you look at the edit history, Roscelese, you'll find that I made many other contributions to the article on Groatsworth, and considerably improved it. This issue is not an issue concerning the violation of a topic ban. It only became one because Paul Barlow challenged factual statements and reliable sources in the article without adding any reliable sources to the article of his own, and when he couldn't prevail on the facts, raised the issue here as an alleged violation of a topic ban, which it is not. NinaGreen (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Huh. Had I known that she was topic banned from all things Shakespeare, I would have gone to ArbCom during the Talk:William Leveson#Requested move and Talk:Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee) discussions that Nina only compromised on when forced to at the end by my recollection. Apparently she's still at it and causing drama and refusing to compromise until backed into corners about Shakespeare related topics. That's all I have to say on the topic, I hope Nina can agree to actually follow the topic ban for at least six months and then request the ban be lifted by Arbcom properly before going back into editing topics related to Shakespeare. Good luck Nina, I really do wish you the best! Technical 13 (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

How counter-productive can Wikipedia get? The two new articles on William Leveson and Thomas Savage I created were featured on the Wikipedia Main Page under DYK, and you're regretting that the creation by me of two entirely new articles on individuals who had an entire life apart from the single occasion on which they acted as Shakespeare's trustees weren't still-born via a report by you to ArbCom? Are we trying to create an encyclopedia here, or administer a gulag? You've demonstrated once again the perniciousness and Catch-22 aspect of topic bans broadly construed. They hinder the development of Wikipedia. NinaGreen (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"Regretting" is such a strong word, but it may be appropriate since it took multiple editors over a month to get you to agree to the page moves to more proper names and I see that you have created a bunch of other new articles with (died YYYY) page names which was determined to be be improper by consensus. But, I digress as it seems that your stubbornness (perhaps I'm not much better as I am stubborn too) has gotten you into some really hot water here. Violating a ArbCom instituted topic ban (repeatedly and grossly ever since you became unblocked) is a pretty serious infraction. I would almost delete all of those pages you made under CSD:G5 since you created them while banned if I was an administrator. Well, the ones that didn't have any significant contributions from other editors of course. Anyways, I'll repeat myself only once here. Good luck and I wish you well! Technical 13 (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Indef-Block NinaGreen until she agrees to be bound by the topic ban.
  This is quite a straightforward situation: a topic ban remains in place, and the broadly construed topic ban means that it definitely covers these pages. If NinaGreen won't work within the terms of that ban, the only sanction remaining is a block.
  I accept that she thinks the topic ban is inappropriate, but the solution is to appeal it rather than ignore it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I have observed the topic ban since it was imposed, and agree to observe it in future. It's simply that the ban is being interpreted so broadly that it's impossible for me to know what the topic ban covers. It was supposed to cover the Shakespeare authorship issue, since that was what the arbitration was about, and I haven't edited anything to do with the authorship since the topic ban was imposed, but the ban is now being interpreted as covering everything even remotely connected to Shakespeare. 'Shakespeare' is a huge subject which impinges on almost every aspect of the Tudor period as well as earlier English historical periods (because of his plays) such as the period of the Wars of the Roses, and the Tudor period is the area in which I have expertise and in which I have something useful to contribute to Wikipedia, and in which I've made an enormous contribution (see above) during the past year. Groatsworth is only peripherally connected to Shakespeare by its reference to a single word 'Shake-scene', and a topic ban should not result from an edit to Groatsworth in which I mentioned absolutely nothing about Shakespeare. In any event, I've agreed to observe the topic ban, even though I have no idea what it actually covers, so I'd appreciate the block being lifted. 173.197.107.10 (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I have reported NinaGreen to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for clearly violating being "topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed." Edward321 (talk) 04:07, 25 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.

Rudeness and non-cooperative behaviour

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

---

• I am posting to complain about uncivil behaviour by User:Volunteer Marek. Today I noticed VM made two edits on 11 January on the page Murzyn without giving edit summaries: removing a relevant picture called here and misrepresenting a citation here to promote his viewpoint (that the word has fewer racist uses than it does). I politely left a message on his talk page and he removed it with an uncivil summary. The summary was especially inappropriate because a) he was in the wrong (he left no edit summaries for contentious edits), b) I hadn't used his talk page for, hmm, perhaps two years, and c) after asking me not to post on his talk page a few years ago he then started sending me private emails (something which seems to me to be cynically against the spirit of banning me using his page). After I stupidly responded to his emails (using an email address with my full name in it, the only time I ever did this on WP) a year and a half ago, two days later I got this sinister comment on my talk page from User:Staszek Lem stating: "BTW, I know you are not Malick, but I am OK with this." Since my implied outing I have sporadically used WP, going from a frequent contributor to a rare contributor. All spoilt by the atmosphere created by these two users.
• Back to the present: today I undid VM's unexplained edits and he immediately reverted my explained undo and then told me to keep off his page with the rude summary. I'm fed up with his battleground behaviour and if I'm to start editing again here on WP as I once did (I've created over 130 articles, so I'd humbly say I'm a positive influence on the site) I would like to ensure that I'm not hounded off once again by VM. It would be nice to have this clarified now here on this page, since VM bans me from discussing it on his page. Malick78 (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• It looks to me like you are provoking him by posting on his talk page despite his repeated requests not to do so. Do we need an interaction ban? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• No provocation. I almost gave up WP because of VM. I posted on his page because he wilfully broke WP rules (no edit summary). Other editors on his talk page have complained about him not leaving summaries. It is inconsiderate to others. Malick78 (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• <shrug>, this sinister comment on my talk pageMy extremely friendly bordering with kiss-ass notice interpreted as sinister? No comment. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict, response to Malick78) Oh please. Malick78 has a long history of leaving harassing messages on my talk page and engaging in some stalking behavior. I have told him on numerous previous occasions to stay off my talk page, but he just doesn't get it. In fact, if anything in the past it seemed only to rile him up and led him to step up the obnoxious behavior. He even edit-warred to keep his unwanted comments on there (until he was told to quit it by someone else) [76]. He hasn't been active in a while so it hasn't been an issue recently.

The article under consideration is borderline notable, as it really belongs on Wikidictionary. There was nothing wrong with my edits. There was something wrong with the material that I removed.

And yes, at one point he did send me an email under his real name. Why is that supposed to be my fault, rather than his? I've never mentioned, alluded to, or even implied I was planning on mentioning or alluding, his name or other info. Either on Wikipedia or any place else. I would never do that and I would especially not do that in this particular case. I don't know who Staszek Lem is, I have never contacted him off Wiki (and AFAICR, on Wiki, except maybe participating in same talk page discussions) and I have no idea what that "sinister comment" (sic - it's not) is talking about. When Malick78 starts talking about "implied outing" the word "implied" above is a pretty clear indication that's he's talking nonsense and is just trying to stir up drama. It's bullshit, no outing "implied" or otherwise ever occurred, by myself, or as best as I can tell by anyone else.

I would appreciate it if Malick78 respected my wish to stay off my talk page and refrained from following me around to other articles (as he has done in the past when this was an issue). If there's hounding here then it's the other way around. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You are avoiding the issue: your edits on 11 January lacked summaries, so were not 'ok'. Then you were very uncivil when I asked you to give summaries. And if I should stay off your talk page, why did you then email me????????? You're disingenuous to say the least. The rest I'll answer later. Good night. Malick78 (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with my edits. I was not "uncivil" to you, I just removed your comment with the edit summary: "how many times do i have to tell you to stay off my talk page?". Which is exactly what it says. I've told you at least half a dozen times to quit posting on my talk page. What's really "uncivil" (and obnoxious, rude and plain assholish) is to continue to leave messages on my talk page AFTER you were asked not to do so, AFTER you almost got blocked for edit warring on my talk page and AFTER you were told by other editors to stay away.

Yes, I emailed you once suggesting that we wipe the slate clean, forget our past differences and try to get along (this was after you gleefully made your own talk page a welcoming platform for anonymous IP users who were busy harassing me in real life). You didn't take up the offer, in fact you started following me to other articles and stepped up the obnoxious comments on my talk page. Apparently you interpreted my offer of reconciliation as some kind of invitation to further harassment or maybe you thought you "smelled weakness" or something. So yeah, I asked you to stay off my talk page. All of which you know and perfectly understand. So it's not me who's being "disingenuous to say the least". Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

A side comment. The painting of a young Black woman called "A Negress" with beautiful gold coin necklace, created by Anna Bilińska-Bohdanowicz in 1884 has absolutely no place in article Murzyn which is pushing an agenda. Placing it there was in particularly bad taste considering that the actual painting was stolen by the Nazis in World War II and recovered in 2011 thanks to the effort of the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage. There's no trace of any implied negativity in that painting whatsoever. Poeticbent talk 01:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

ES&L 01:24, 25 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.

I am finally completely fed up with User:Orestes1984's attacks on me and others

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 here.

And here.

And another.

Oh, and here he blamed me for Australia not winning its bid to host the World Cup, while also insulting all Australian Football fans with "you cannot teach AFL supporters class".

Here he attacked another Wikipedia article that he doesn't like, and in doing so obviously condemned my references to it.

And here we have "a minority of POV pushers"

There are many, many more examples. This editor has on dozens of occasions attacked me and others for defending the consensus at Talk:Soccer in Australia to call the round ball game just that, "soccer", in internal Australian articles. The standard form of attack is that I am "pushing a POV agenda", but there have been many others.

This editor persistently fails to use Edit summaries, despite having been here for eight years.

Becasue of the way discussions are allowed to so easily go off track, and because complaints about me have been incorrectly brought here so many times, I am always very hesitant to bring problems about other editors here. But I really am getting sick of the constant abuse from Orestes1984.

This discussion must not turn into one on what the game should be called. That belongs elsewhere. Consistent consensus on it has been repeatedly achieved several times already. User:Orestes1984 disagrees with that consensus, and won't give up the fight.

This thread is about the persistent unpleasant personal attacks on editors doing exactly what they should. HiLo48 (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope you'll actually link to a personal attack (see WP:WIAPA). I see some possibly uncivil harsh words, but not a single personal attack ES&L 11:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Half the links you posted here are comments from people other than Orestes1984. Some are from yourself actually. only (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And remember to duck from stray boomerangs... what if you did repeatedly railroad other editors, etc? Just a thought... On edit: Sorry HiLo, just realised who the fuck you are. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, in what way is your edited comment necessary or appropriate here? I don't see anything you're adding to the discussion. only (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Have to go with ES&L and Only here. Did you mess up the diffs or something? Blackmane (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Boomerang: Hilo alleges he/she is the victim using diffs that do not actually verify the allegations. Meanwhile, a quick review of the Talk page shows comments from Hilo like "You have yet again gone down the bullshit path... piss off" and "Are you really trying hard to act so dumb?" and "You are either completely incompetent, or you have chosen to deliberately ignore". Another one from Talk archives is "BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!! That claim is simply incorrect." It appears to be a heated content dispute where Hilo is frustrated because a prior article-move discussion was closed in support of the status quo (his preferred version), but editors continue to discuss it in a manner that may put the ruling at risk. Other editors have also been tense, but not to this extent. I would support a 30-day block for Hilo as a cooling off period, followed by a short leash for future civility problems. Since there was recently a "ruling" on the content dispute, any RfC-type discussion should wait until he returns. CorporateM (Talk) 14:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have simply tried to present a view that has been filibustered into the ground with pointless BRDs and other issues, there have been clear cases of meat puppetry going on here Talk:Soccer_in_Australia#Orestes_has_taken_the_battle_elsewhere the topic of that discussion alone should be picked up upon, as it says, you cannot use talk pages in order to garner support for your position. There is incivility flying around everywhere, but the talk page for soccer in Australia has been the consistent location. Unfortunately it's a challenge to be around an editor that has a history of incivility, and not just towards myself as an editor. I'm not going to say anything more on the matter, because I don't like to be drawn into AN/I as nothing good ever comes from AN/I... I do not want to cause trouble here, I could not state that any more clearly, but it seems HiLo48 cannot interact with other users who are trying to edit in good faith on soccer related articles in Australia. Perhaps Hilo48 should be topic banned from editing on soccer related articles on Wikipedia so as we can all have some peace? --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

*blink* Um, you've read your own very inflammatory and inappropriately uncivil comments, right? ES&L 15:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I have, there is no grounds for that around other users, however user HiLo48 as well as other users are impossibly uncivil on a consistent basis towards any editors that even attempt to present a view that does not support their agenda. There is a clear boomerang going on here, and HiLo48 perhaps should have thought a bit more seriously before bringing this up at AN/I. I do not want to be on AN/I but unfortunately HiLo48 has taken it to this, I would not be the first user that HiLo48 has been uncivil towards however and I probably won't be the last. It really is difficult to go about editing in articles that HiLo48 patrols without running into his incivility. Unfortunately, while I know it's wrong I have a propensity to return it towards those who are uncivil. I don't actually mind if I end up getting called up for this myself, it's probably deserved, in fact I know I have been uncivil. However, it has become impossible on soccer related pages in Australia for any editor that disagrees with HiLo48 to have a civil discussion, HiLo48 edits his own talk pages to tell anyone who contacts him to "piss off" and uses other such language, and four letter words when other users seek to discuss anything in an appropriate place of discussion. I am just trying to put forward a position so as editors of soccer related articles can edit in peace. I am simply trying to intervene in a matter that HiLo48 is making more controversial than it needs to be, perhaps my actions may be seen as inappropriate, the full ramifications of this AN/I are yet to play out, unfortunately whichever way this goes it's the way the cards have fallen. I cannot do anything about the evidence that is out there, I can only say that it's much more than a one sided story presented by HiLo48. --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, really? Hilo complaining about personal attacks? Seriously? Come on. Address your own behavior first, then come here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Responding to the above, I have tried to suggest to HiLo48 in various ways that this wasn't a good idea to bring this to AN/I. I do not simply have to "give up the fight" and AN/I is simply not the place to resolve "the fight" that is related to the contents of the article soccer in australia which i think is what HiLo48 is trying to resolve. I have had all kinds of things thrown at me including "who the do you think you are" from certain users, which is nothing more than a direct threat on my person over an article on Wikipedia. I do not understand this? In none of my editing have I directly introduced anything that actually goes against consensus so HiLo48 begins to seem even more irrational about dealing with this matter in such a way. While I haven't had perfect behaviour, this would represent the kind of irrationality and the type of behaviour that leads to this. Unlike others, I simply will not leave under HiLo48's duress which has caused HiLo48 to raise this issue at AN/I. I have stated I am not a saint in this regard, and am willing to let the cards fall where they may if it means resolving this issue, as I said on Talk:Soccer in Australia. --Orestes1984 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Less that a month ago, HiLo48 called me a "fool" and later added that they are proud of this behavior and regret I am not yet blocked. I am still waiting when they start calling users fucking assholes and claim this is not a personal attack. If they have such low standards of civility in their own behavior, they should not really expect much of others. Especially given they already have been blocked previously. WP:BOOMERANG would certainly be in order here.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Here I am being called a moron for simply asking HiLo48 to cite a source on the Barassi Line on a wiki page that will be viewed by the whole world where people would be unfamiliar with the term, as well as having four letter words thrown at me. There also seems to be an ongoing case of circular referencing to an article that has very few references to any articles on soccer and which also contain little content on soccer. In fact I tried to add a section on soccer at one point but was reverted. The barassi line concept represents the type of ongoing irrationality that user HiLo48 is continuing to promote which has led this whole matter to AN/I. IF I wanted to be cynical I could say that HiLo48 and other users were maintaining articles such as the barassi line article to filibuster any discussion of soccer in Australia and to promote the AFL needlessly in articles which are of no consequence to the AFL.

Now then filibustering IS a matter which can be raised at AN/I, I haven't yet because I suspect as a result of my last post on Talk:Soccer in Australia that HiLo48 raised this AN/I in retaliation, but that is simply yet more evidence of continued irrational behaviour and incivility when I have tried to warn HiLo48 that nothing good will come for either of us from the sort of AN/I issue HiLo48 raised here. I digress a little, the comment above about WP:BOOMERANG is definitely on the mark.--Orestes1984 (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't call for boomerangs unless your own hands are free of curved throwing implements. Your own behaviour is atrocious - so much so that blocks for the both of you make the most sense in order to protect this project from further BS ES&L 21:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, forget the whole thing. This thread perfectly demonstrates why I hate AN/I. It doesn't work. I really was hoping for a calm, rational discussion. And, if I did stuff up some of those diffs, my apologies. I don't find it easy to get them right. It's frustrating that one has to use such a complicated procedure to point out when someone is doing something wrong. Unfortunately too, Orestes1984 tends to edit his own posts multiple times, so it's difficult to get the precise diff that properly shows the problem. So, sorry for using up everyone's time. Bye for now. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As it says, you do not have to edit in one effort, there is nothing wrong with any of this directly above. I have suggested calmly in the past that you look at you your own actions that lead to this, others here have repeated those thoughts, I'd suggest you actually heed that advice before shooting yourself in the foot. Nothing good will come from AN/I and I simply will not go away under duress of your comments, or the use of this process for any means which would attempt to make me go away by your actions. I have a right to edit here as do you until such time as an administrator states otherwise. Please take heed of your own actions before it gets you in any more trouble, or this unnecessarily goes any further than what it has. As I have also previously tried to tell you calmly, perhaps occasionally you should also step away from the consensus koolaid and furthermore, that sometimes you do not have to agree. You are the only user I have ever had this much difficulty with, if you look at some of the above posts, you will see that I am not alone. It would pay well to look at why this is the case, and why you cannot simply have your way by talking over the top of someone. As I have said previously, if you would like to continue to revert my edits unnecessarily then we can come back here on the grounds of filibustering, but I do not like AN/I and nor should you. Have a little respect for all of this and just edit with others in peace... --Orestes1984 (talk) 22:20, 22 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.

• While not perfect (who is?), HiLo has in my view been admirably restrained in extremely trying circumstances - ones in which I, and I imagine many Wikipedians, would struggle to keep their cool. Orestes1984 seems to have been accusing HiLo of everything that they are in fact guilty of themselves - POV-pushing, battleground behaviour, failure to AGF, personal attacks. This is a classic example: "Your insularity and incompetence astounds me, furthermore it was only ever called soccer as a form of appeasement to the people like yourself that can't understand why the game is called football."[77] When I commented opposing Orestes's position, they responded by accusing HiLo of meatpuppetry[78] (interestingly, he was apparently also guilty of both incivility and civil POV-pushing, which seems a bit contradictory) and referring to "drive by commentary from your fellow AFL editors in New Zealand"[79] (which I found rather amusing, since I certainly don't follow Aussie Rules, which I've hardly ever seen since it isn't popular in New Zealand, while I do follow soccer). That ridiculous assumption of bad faith with no evidence to support it demonstrates just how unable Orestes is to approach this in a proper manner. I believe they need to be banned from the topic of the proper name of soccer/football/association football. Neljack (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuing problem

Orestes1984 (talk · contribs) has just posted another attack targeting HiLo48 (talk · contribs) with heading "All of this nonsense can be attributed to HiLo48's inability to edit in a civil manner"—see User talk:Skyring (diff).

The attack is minor as far as attacks go, but it would be very helpful if an uninvolved admin were to point out that such inflammatory commentary has no place on a user talk page (particularly when that user has an interaction ban with HiLo48). Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously... This is nothing more than a straight forward apology for the nonsense behaviour that is going on here. Is this worthy of an AN/I? I am merely attempting to defuse the situation calmly in a way that is understandable. Bringing up interaction bans I am unaware of as more of a reason why I should be sanctioned for this is not helpful either. I simply cannot be expected to be across all fronts here and particularly in a case where the user has a history of being confrontational and inflammatory.

Meanwhile in response to the above, while being harsh at times with my opinion, I have been no more so harsh than HiLo48 has been with other users and myself on soccer related pages. Furthermore I have not gone to great lengths to direct abusive four letter word commentary at HiLo48, while instead, repeatedly I have had four letter words thrown at me as well as having my integrity as a person and intelligence questioned repeatedly. In such trying conditions, most people would at least respond at some level or another.

With regards to the comments that I made regarding a certain user and AFL, I do believe the user I referenced was also a member of project AFL User:Jenks24 see the difs here. This debate was closed, I'm sorry that my efforts in trying to calm the situation have led us to another excursion to AN/I. I would note that any interaction ban between HiLo48 and any other user is merely going to be a bandaid on this problem until the next confrontation, I'd strongly suggest a topic ban for user HiL048 while for myself as I have said, if there is anything going on here, I am willing to let the cards fall where they may and am more than happy to have a holiday particularly if it means other editors can edit in peace.

In reference to the claims of meat puppetry, I have noted above that you cannot use talk pages to solicit a response from other users with regards to the contents of another page, this was and still clearly remains an open case of meat puppetry. The section I noted above here is meat puppetry. IF I wanted to continue with my claims of meat puppetry I would flag a number of other users, but I haven't had a chance yet as the AN/Is against me are flying thick and fast.

Finally, What I stated was not meant as a personal attack, but merely as a summary of how I thought the situation was panning out at the time I made the comments, to who I thought was an onlooker, as I stated I had no idea about the interaction ban, nor did I intend to cause any issues involving anything to do with said interaction ban. --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have asked for an independent admin to provide some strong advice to the effect that continuing to use user or article talk pages to discuss claimed deficiences in another editor must stop. No problem about your being unaware of the interaction ban, but you are aware of it now (and can confirm it at WP:RESTRICT). As there has been no reply to your comment at User talk:Skyring, why not remove it and confirm that similar comments will not be repeated? Wikipedia is a complex place, but a lot of the standard procedures can be understood upon considering what might result from alternatives. It is clear that there are strong views about how WP:COMMONNAME applies—should the game with a round ball be called "soccer" or "football" (with the latter apparently being the now-preferred official title)? Consider what might result from a situation where every editor concerned visited various talk pages and added commentary about how their opponent was responsible for nonsense and, by implication from the wording in the comment, is an idiot. How could that work? The person with the most perseverance and witty insults wins? Please just stop. Even if, in your opinion, it is all the other person's fault, if the community remains unconvinced after noticeboard discussion, editors must stop badgering each other and focus on the issue (WP:COMMONNAME). Obviously referring to another editor as an idiot will not "defuse the situation". Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I will remove what was merely a comment, and not a personal attack, as to the other claims, claiming innocence of user HiLo48 is beyond incomprehensible, you only have to look at his interaction history. As for the ongoing campaign to have all discussions curtailed and enforcing purely WP:COMMONNAME. I simply cannot agree. Wikipedia is an open space where wide ranging opinions should be accepted as the norm. There is no need for personal attacks, of which I have had a number of directed at me, most recently noted above being called a "moron." I think, if you care, you should have a word with HiLo48 about his own actions, and his resistance to discussing these and other issues. I think you will find I am a reasonable person, where as I have not found that to be the case with HiLo48. --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

My comments say nothing about the innocence or otherwise of HiLo48. If you think otherwise, you are reading too quickly and not taking the time to comprehend what was written. Other editors may react badly if that occurred repeatedly. Please re-read this discussion tomorrow and consider whether the "when you argue with idiots..." comment is compatible with "merely a comment, and not a personal attack". Thank you for removing the post. Johnuniq (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

My comments were a general statement as I noted, I'm a bit hot headed right now particularly after being brought here twice. I don't like AN/I and I don't like using AN/I. I need to step back and think about where to go next. --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I would very much prefer not to be stalked, Johnuniq. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

stalking would appear to be something that is common here, and I'm about sick of it as well. My edits should not be needlessly patrolled for ulterior reasons, certain users such as Afterwriting would do well not to track every single edit I make on Wikipedia. The full and most recent unpleasantries and baseless claims can be found here --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing could be further from the truth. Orestes1984 constantly makes these kinds of extremely reactionary and false accusations against myself and any other editors who dare to challenge his frequently factually incorrect opinions. He goes on the attack against other editors without provocation and then blames them in a highly self-pitying manner when they respond critically to his offensive behaviour. His comments above are simply another addition to his expanding litany of self-pitying comments and blame deflection. Enough really is enough! Afterwriting (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

More dramitisation going on here as well as exaggeration and lack of factual substance. If anything recently I have spent a fair amount of time cleaning up the misinformation that has been floating around here. I am being vilified here by user Afterwriting purely on the basis of his own agenda that does not reflect any realities. There is no self pity going on here, only an editor that is some what annoyed that I will not accept a consensus, and as I have repeated numerous times, I simply do not have to fall in line with the agenda that is being created by a certain group of users here. Afterwriting should be reminded that I am allowed to maintain a view that differs substantially from his own, and should refrain from the ongoing attempts of what amounts to nothing more than baseless character assassination. See here for the above users ongoing tirade against an administrator that disagrees with the users behaviour.--Orestes1984 (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The comment by Orestes1984 above that he is "being vilified here by user Afterwriting purely on the basis of his own agenda that does not reflect any realities" is yet another example of his frequent extreme and false accusations against other editors. It should also be noted that he failed to notify me on my talk page, as required, that he was making comments about me on here. Afterwriting (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

you were warned to disengage from this kind of behaviour here and yet you have continued, can I have my personal space back now please? The comment "Your highly inadequate and inconsistent behaviour as an administrator has only helped to fuel matters" directed towards an administrator does not help your case. Your inability to disengage from this kind of dramitisation of the facts is simply a matter of reality. The embellishments going on here are astounding. --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this a silly joke? You were directly asked to disengage and stop making provocative comments by an administrator on your talk page. Your assurances that you would lasted next to no time at all. All you ever seem to want to do is attack other editors. We should not have to tolerate your unprovoked attacks. And my criticism of the administrator's inconsistent behaviour was warranted in the circumstances. Administrators are not exempt from criticism by other editors. Afterwriting (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The directive to disengage was directed at everyone including yourself, and you have failed to comply, you have unnecessarily added derogative comments to my talk page, and you cannot seem to stop for a second not to embelish the facts to suit your own agenda. That is the reality of what is going on here --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the general request on the article talk page for editors to disengage, the same administrator made a personal request on your talk page for you to disengage and to stop making provocative comments. The comments that I made on your talk page were about your lack of competence. If you want to intrepret this as being "derogative" then so be it. You provoke and provoke and provoke and then complain with self-pity when those you've provoked respond as might be expected. Afterwriting (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense and further to the point I approached said administrator to discuss the matters. You cannot stop embellishing the facts to suit your own agenda, you fail to acknowledge your contribution to this mess and you fail to acknowledge both your own and HiLo48s behaviour. HiLo48 as noted above is far from a saint, you are not innocent I am not the provocateur you make me out to be, please stop this behaviour of going around and embellishing the facts to suit your own agenda simply because I disagree with you about what has been going on Talk:soccer in Australia Your own behaviour is a disgrace and you will not acknowledge that it simply has a whole hell of a lot to do with your own actions --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you believe that denial is a river in Egypt. You also seem to have failed to notice that a number of other editors have also commented on your lack of competence as well as your habitual incivility (see above for example). I am now ending my part in this "discussion". You will want to have the last word as usual. I won't be bothering to read any more of your denials and self-pitying accusations so anything you have to say will only be a waste of your own time. Afterwriting (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Stalking seems to be too common in Wikipedia these days, it is done by certain admins as well. But so is acting like a drama queen and complaining here about every trivial grievance. I guess ANI *is* the new drama queen hangout of Wikipedia. Let's close this section, as there is nothing that requires admin interference. jni (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? You're an admin and you make comments like that? ES&L 17:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

May I just point out that it is utterly hypocritical for HiLo48 to complain about incivility. I see absolutely nothing objectionable from Orestes here. Move on.--WaltCip (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet more

HiLo48 asked Orestes1984 to stay away from his talk page here and here. Both time he immediately responded with yet further edits here and here. Today Orestes1984 started to post again to HiLo48's talk page here and here. He was then reminded that he had been asked to stay away by this edit by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Orestes1984 then responded with a series of edits [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]. I then noticed this activity and posted this message, reminding Orestes yet again that he should stay off HiLo48's talk page. He again replied here and here When HiLo48 once again repeated his instruction for Orestes to stay off the talk page here. I replied to Orestes1984 with the advice that that continuing to post after being instructed not to would have consequences here and once again Orestes1984 once more posted here. This guy just does not get it. I propose that some admin action is required here, at the very least an IBAN, but I think a block is probably warranted as well. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see that a block has already been applied. Hopefully this will serve as a salutary lesson. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Incivility and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by User:NE2

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.

---

Primarily, this is the edit I am starting this for.[87], which I find grossly incivil and downright degrading. This forms my endcap on continued stubborness by NE2 to work with some recent changes that have otherwise garnered unanimous consensus. Several massive templates were recently converted to Lua, which completely erases a longstanding problem of page edits timing out on large articles. However, NE2 has been very stubborn about this change because of his use of one of the templates combined with manually wikicoding the rest of a table. Instead of working with the majority to fix the articles that are broken, he has been cross posting to numerous places in order to get his way. This is getting old, uncivil, and something needs to be done. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Since the comment linked above was in reference to me, I chose to ignore the above comment, since I don't have nor ever will I have a wife, since I'm not into that, but it was rather uncivil. --AdmrBoltz 21:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think NE2 was just pointing out that he believed you were asking him a loaded question. You assumed he was listing articles randomly, this was a rather snarky way of saying your assumption was wrong. AniMate 22:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Granted, my initial response wasn't the best - but in his list of articles there is an FA and a GA... thus obviously notable. --AdmrBoltz 22:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

An admin might want to take care of Template talk:Jcttop/core - the template was recently changed to use HTML table code rather than wikicode, which for whatever reason doesn't allow wikicode inside for individual rows:

<table class=wikitable>
<tr><td>a</td></tr>
|-
|b
</table>

--NE2 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at the links in question, I see no evidence of basic bad behavior; as AniMate says, the "wife" bit is simply an allusion to the traditional complex question "have you stopped beating your wife?" On top of that, I see technical discussions in the links, but nothing of the sort that deserves to be called disruptive, let alone worthy of a block or other sanction. If you believe that this is a situation warranting admin intervention, you really need to supply a lot more links — the only way this kind of thing could be disruptive is if there's a long history, and you need lots of additional links/diffs to demonstrate that there's a long history of disruption. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Isn't this just a specialised case of edit warring over the colour of templates? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No, more like not edit warring (since the templates are protected) over needing to use only red templates if you start the table with a red template, even when the red templates don't do what you're looking to do. --NE2 00:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• A recent post at WT:LUA#Wikitext tables? claims that the problem has been resolved, and if a page shows a problem, it should be purged. If that does not fix it, the problem should be reported again. Re the "wife" issue: that is a completely standard reply to a loaded question, and is not incivility. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 23 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.

Project Page of India's First Student Collaboration Initiative Speedy Deleted

I request the users/administrators to read the follow details carefully and patiently. My language may not be good.

I was editing Wikipedia since 2005. I am also Working in Excel Group of Schools, Thiruvattar. I, upon request from a senior Wikimedia Chapter Member, participated in the Wiki-Kanya, a wikipedia workshop conducted in Nagercoil, by the district administration to promote Wikipedia among College Students. Some 10 Wikipedia Volunteers ( including administrators and Wikimedia India Chapter members)participated in the event. Mean-while, there in our school we were planning to initiate a group of clubs from the academic year 2013-14 onwards. Inspired by the event, Web-Kanya, I expressed the idea with the delegating of starting a Wikipedia Club in Excel Group of Schools. Part of the Delegation (including chapter members) who took part in Wiki-Kanya also visited our school and discussed about the feasibility of starting a club there. Following the discussions we went ahead with the move to start a Wikipedia Club in our school named "Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club, Excel (deleted few hours before, hence the red-link)" as a student collaboration initiative. This was the first of its kind in India and probably in the world. This student Club was inagurated by Theni. M. Subramani, a Tamil Wikipedia Administrator on 10 August 2013. It includes 70 School Students from 3 schools under Excel Group of Schools. The objective of the Club is to promote Wikipedia Editing among School Students. We made weekly schedules and started making students aware of Wikipedia from September 2013.

In November 2014, I participated in the 10th Anniversary of the Tamil Wikipedia held in Anna University, Chennai. There I discussed about our Club with the Wikimedia Chapter Members, Administrators etc. They requested the District administration of Kanyakumari District to help/assist our initiative in all possible means. Since the district administration as well as the District Collector are well aware of potentialities of Wikipedia ( quiet unusual here in this part of the world), they contacted me and enquired about the how abouts of our club. I explained our mission this year to work upon the improvement of three Wikipedia articles Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari and Nagercoil to promote at least one of them to a FA class article before this June 2014. They made available the accessibility for us to the District Gazeteer, one among the highly reserved and the most reliable information resource (which includes more than 1200 pages) about the district.

The paper works are under progress regarding the source material before adding information directly to Wikipedia since we need to educate all the dimensions of Wikipedia before allowing them to click the edit & save buttons. We also conducted a Photo-tour for the students of Wikipedia Club around the district and made them to take photo-graphs on their own, which is to be uploaded to Commons shortly. Almost 90 % of the photo-graphs are ready to be uploaded and 90 % source material in case of the Kanyakumari District and 60 % in case of the Kanyakumari & Nagercoil articles which is to be refered before begining the online edits are already verified and categorised. Infact the titles for all those articles, (which were all very-much in comprehensive) were also finalized for all the 3 articles.

And it was at this time, this morning, the Project Page of the Wikipedia Club was listed for speedy deleted and was deleted before i anticipate to letting the administrators know about the project. If notability is the problem, Dinamani, one of the leading Tamil News paper in Tamil already included a feature about the Wikipedia Club Excel as the first student Wikipedia Club in India. Iam not sure about the availability of the edition online. I'll scan the page if required. A leading Tamil Magazine Tamil Computer also reported about the Clubs inaguration. The Club also have a project page in Tamil Wikipedia. We had also uploaded photographs of the inaguration and all subsequent events frequently. Again the inaugural event is again reported as news article in another daily Tamil News Paper Dinamalar

The other problem is with the Edu-Clubs page. Wikipedia Club is one among the 11 Edu-Clubs in the 3 schools. So Wikipedia Club has a Project page seperately here in Wikipedia (which was speedy deleted this morning) and The Edu-Clubs has a Article with the name Edu-Clubs. The Edu-Clubs page is being voted for deletion citing the notability though almost all of the information currently available in the page is from a leading Tamil News Paper, Dinamalar from Tamil Nadu. Anyway that is rather different.

But that is not the case with the project page of Wikipedia. This initiative is aimed to promote Wikipedia among School Students and it is first of its kind in the nation. That itself is reported by leading Newspapers in terms of Circulation and Reputation. The Wikipedia Administrators, Chapter Members etc are directly involved in the progress of the Club. But the process of this "Speedy Deletion" irritated me this morning sinceit gives me too little time to make even the administrators aware of all those things before somebody nominating it for deletion and somebody else doing the rest in the immediately following minutes. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) First off, that is a very long complaint; but more importantly, if you are disputing the deletion of an article you created, the best place to do that is at deletion review. Also, I didn't see the article before it was deleted, but if it proves to be notable after all, it can be re-created, but...it would be a good idea if someone other than you did so, as your being affiliated with it constitutes a conflict of interest. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• (also non-admin comment/question) What was the page intended for? It did read like an actual article, which is why it was speedy-deleted. Its placement in project namespace was also problematic, as that is generally not for things like this. Perhaps you should ask the folks over at WP:Education noticeboard on how best to proceed with your club. Good luck. Ansh666 09:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The article was at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club Excel until 24 January, then moved to Excel Wikipedia Club (not by any of the page authors) and deleted under WP:CSD#A7. This isn't a particularly fair way to treat this page, which at least deserves a WP:MFD. While written like an article, it isn't clear that it was intended for anything other than project space. —Kusma (t·c) 11:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have suggested to Kinu (the deleting admin) to undelete the page and have a discussion at MFD if necessary. —Kusma (t·c) 11:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Restored the contents to WP Project space Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club, Excel. If necessary, have a discussion at MFD. IMHO, such initiatives should be encouraged. -- Tinu Cherian - 12:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there some particular reason why you didn't restore the page history? 128.243.59.55 (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably because the edit-summaries in the history are what was problematic? ES&L 13:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought only one of the edit summaries had to be revdeleted, not all of them. Epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it was more like 1/3 of the total edits to the page. Ansh666 20:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As an admin, I can verify that Epicgenius's assessment of the situation is correct here, so I've restored the older page history. Graham87 10:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's best to reduce the use of speedy deletion for such cases given that it is not in the article namespace and because these hurt outreach programs in critically under-represented areas. Not to say that deletions or merges should be moderated, but just the speedy part, please. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is the article is written like an article not a project page, but is in project namespace so people are very confused. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was indeed treated like a WP:FAKEARTICLE (albeit not in userspace). @Vaikunda Raja: could you explain exactly what this page is intended for? Ansh666 20:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I echo this sentiment: this is nothing more than a very detailed page about the history, etc., of the club itself that reads like an article, rather than being what a hub for collaborative editing would ideally look like in the Wikipedia namespace. Frankly, it was wholly inappropriate in the Article namespace, hence why I found deleting it when it was moved there a reasonable course of action; likewise, its appropriateness in the Wikipedia namespace, as currently written, is questionable. Restoring the content seems like a good idea at the moment, pending discussion, and I do not oppose the reversion of my deletion, but some information from the OP on what the goals, purpose, etc., of this page are would be helpful in determining the best course of action and figuring out where, if anywhere, this page belongs. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all for bringing the the page back.

This is a collaboration initiative for Wikipedia started in Excel Group of Schools (3 Schools) being inspired by the Wiki-Kanya Program held at Kanyakumari last year. It is aimed at making School students of the schools wiki-conscious initially and gradually making them to contribute to Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Already we've started to work upon few assignments mentioned above in detail. More than half of the work is done. But those things are not reflected here in Wikipedia partly because of our lack of experience in handling things and partly because of the fact that we are cautious about allowing direct online access since we are dealing with school children. We make them to work almost completely in paper and offline first and then allow them to upload those things under our supervision.

A photo-tour was conducted this 4th Jan 2014 (which was also elaborated above in detail) in which students took their own photographs with their camers and will be uploading them to commons later.

Though I am here in Wikipedia for some years I've no clear ideas about how a project page should be. We will be improving the page shortly according the Wikipedia's guidelines and eventually we will be moving the page to meta. Once again I thank all the users for your helps and valuable suggestions. Thanks. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe what you are really aiming for is something covered by WP:WIKIPROJECT. I think the misunderstanding arose from the use of the words "Project page" that appears at the top of every page in WP. Blackmane (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Persistent plagiarism by User:Der Spion

• Der Spion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eben Alexander (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WP:COPYVIO source: [88]
• Plagiarized content:
  • Exact phrase: there was no way that any of the functions including vision, hearing, emotion, memory, language, or logic could possibly have been intact
  • Exact phrase except change of "but" to "yet":
    • Source: Only isolated pockets of deep cortical neurons were still sputtering, but no broad networks capable of generating anything like what we call “consciousness.”
    • WP article: only isolated pockets of deep cortical neurons were still sputtering, yet no broad networks capable of generating anything like what we call “consciousness”
  • Questionable use of the same phrases "made sure" and "flooded my[his] brain":
    • Source: The E. coli bacteria that flooded my brain during my illness made sure of that.
    • WP article: This was made sure by the E. coli bacteria that flooded his brain.
• User inserts this plagiarized material at least four times: [89][90][91][92]
• My copyvio warnings to stop plagiarizing: [93][94][95][96][97]

I don't understand why this person continues to plagiarize. vzaak 14:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, is there a better way in your eyes to express all relevant aspects of these two (!) sentences without maundering around endlessly or changing their message? I think, nobody is hurt if you leave the status quo as it is. In addition: You need to put both criticism and response in a context that allows the reader to receive a good and complete overview of the whole discussion. But, for sure, you won't achive that by amputating the line of argumentation on either side. So please try to relax and think in a more constructive way than constantly accusing with a wagging finger "don't do this" and "don't do that". I don't understand why this person keeps bothering me and complaining about my trials to improve the article instead of making a constructive contribution for once.--Der Spion (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, "leaving the status quo as it is" hurts Wikipedia as it puts the Foundation in legal jeopardy. This is a copyright violation and must be removed straight away. This is a policy and there is no if's or but's. This is one policy that when you are told "don't do this" you have no choice but to comply. Failure to do so has led to many accounts being indefinitely blocked in the past. The burden is on you as the editor who wants to insert the relevant detail, with appropriate sourcing, to present the text in a way that does not place the Foundation at legal risk. Blackmane (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation or plagiarism? They are very different. One is illegal the other is not. If this is just plagiarizing then legal threats are not justified. Plagiarism is generally considered unethical but single sentences copied exactly that express an idea that isn't novel by the original author is not an issue. "The sky is blue" is perfectly acceptable plagiarizing and we don't need to rephrase it because someone else said it first. WP:PARAPHRASE is an essay, not a guideline or policy. --DHeyward (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Der Spion - sorry, but you seem to be in the wrong here. Could you please help by fixing examples of too close WP:PARAPHRASE paraphrasing in your contributions? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • There were multiple problems with the user's edits: plagiarism, undue promotional content, and unreliable sources. Just rephrasing the plagiarism doesn't address the other problems. One possibility is to trim huge preceding quote and add a summary. User was not convinced to stop plagiarizing after five warnings plus an ANI notice, so maybe there's a competence issue. vzaak 23:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Do whatever you want - I'm completely brassed off...--Der Spion (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think you're "brassed off", imagine how the people whose work you copied feel! ES&L 17:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you think, you can do better job: go for it! But stop nagging at users who just want to make a useful contribution...--Der Spion (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Editors are throwing labels around that are different.
WP:COPYVIO is a policy. It is policy not violate copyrights.
WP:PLAGIARISM is a guideline. It is widely adhered to but is not a policy violation.
WP:PARAPHRASE is an essay.

Copyright violations are separate from plagiarism. If an editor notices plagiarism, they should correct it themselves much like MOS guidelines. It is inappropriate to drop WP:COPYVIO notices for plagiarism. If it's a copyright violation, it should not be called plagiarism as it's a copyright violation. Copyright violations should be deleted. --DHeyward (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Back to the practical matter at hand, straightforward cases of WP:COPYVIO are shown above, and after five warnings and this ANI thread, the editor in question still does not seem to acknowledge that there is problem. vzaak 06:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What makes them copyright violations? You called it plagiarizing. There is no problem with the editor if it's plagiarizing, just fix it like you would an MOS by rewording it. Plagiarism is not a crime or policy violation. It's like reporting someone for MOS violations. --DHeyward (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If an editor plagiarizes a source under copyright protection, then it is a copyright violation. Many editors, including myself, have inadvertently plagiarized a source, and that is forgivable. What is much more troubling is how close the violations are to the original text and the fact that they have been repeatedly reinserted into the article. It is the responsibility of the editor adding text to refrain from repeating or edit warring over these violations once they have been pointed out, not the responsibility of other editors to clean up after them. Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You are making a distinction without a difference. A copyvio is a copyvio regardless of plagiarizing, quoting, paraphrasing or sourcing. Quoting and citing can eliminate plagiarism, but not a copyvio. If the amount of material could be quoted and cited, it's generally has to fall under "fair use." How it's used (whether sourced or plagiarized) is not relevant to copyright. In reality this case is plagiarizing and needs attribution. It's fair use (even if paraphrased) but it's not a copyvio. --DHeyward (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Government IPs are whitewashing the page of a US Congress 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.

---

Details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cathy_McMorris_Rodgers#Why_is_there_no_indication_of_her_political_positions_here.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herp Derp (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in your allegations. But just to let you know, you can request protection for articles which have a high level of IP vandalism - this prevents IP users from editing the page: they would have to create a username and sign in to edit.

You can request this at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, The Bushranger, well, sure, thanks for closing this and all, but some abusive admin power, mixed with some flawless editorial skills, is sometimes called for--good thing I have both in ample supply. I restored some of the info that was removed without explanation (though with plenty of motivation, no doubt), and applied some long-term semi-protection to the article: there is plenty of evidence laid out on the talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:32, 25 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:Jaqeli and User:FactStraight

Jaqeli and FactStraight are having a content dispute on several articles dealing with current, living descendants of the Bagrationi dynasty (which ruled Georgia until its takeover by the Russian empire in the early 19th century). See the revision history and talk pages for Batonishvili, Anna Bagration-Gruzinsky, and Giorgi Bagrationi (born 2011). I have been asked to intervene (see User talk:Richwales#User:FactStraight and User talk:FactStraight#Content disputes at Giorgi Bagrationi (born 2011) and related articles) — but since I have interacted with Jaqeli on content-related matters in the past and have worked on other articles relating to Georgia, I believe I am precluded per WP:INVOLVED from taking any sort of admin action in this situation. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this "content dispute" has really become an edit war; each party is claiming to be seeking NPOV and accusing the other of pushing propaganda (see the two talk page sections I cited above). I tried to talk both parties into discussing the issues calmly and suggested established dispute resolution procedures, but this didn't help. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Rich for bringing the case here and I do hope that the admins will have the strictest possible warning to anyone and especially the user FactStriaght who will try to disrupt the wikipedia articles in the future. I'd like to state that this does not happen to all Bagrationi-related articles but especially to article Bagrationi dynasty, little prince Giorgi Bagrationi (born 2011), his mother Anna Bagration-Gruzinsky and recently to article Batonishvili though I would suggest we monitor all articles concerning especially the family of little prince Giorgi including his father, grandfather and etc. User FactStraight by the lack of the attention of wider wikipedia users and admins did his best to put everywhere his biased and propagandist views and his actions should be immediately stop. I've warned him many times but he did the same over and over again and as I see no point having a consensus with that user I'd like to ask other uninvolved users and admins to monitor very closely these very articles as those are of the highest possible importance for the Georgian monarchism and articles related to it. I would agree on the strictest possible monitoring on those articles and no one should make any edit without having a consensus. Jaqeli (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The above is another statement where Jaqeli sees the issue as completely the fault of the other editor. After coming back off a standard offer, and being topic-banned from a different set of articles, Jaqeli still doesn't understand that edit warring is a two way thing. I've not had much experience with FactStraight, but in the three articles mentioned neither has presented sources in the talkpages. That said, there are a few sources mentioned in Talk:Bagrationi dynasty, but it seems some OR is present too. Is there another location where some discussion is happening?

As this issue is about how to deal with claimants to a royal line that lost its kingdom a couple of centuries ago, it probably should go through some sort of WP:DR with other users, with both users asked to leave to leave both these and other related articles in the wrong version until some conclusion emerges from the DR. CMD (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Wow. Is there any surprise with a tone like the above that Jaqeli is topic-banned from all articles where Georgia/Armenia intersect. Perhaps it's time to expand that. This high-and-mighty attitude does not bode well for a community project ES&L 14:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Both Jaqeli and FactStraight should agree to stop making any more Bagrationi-related edits until talk page consensus is reached. If edits continue anyway, admins should consider blocking. Anyone who thinks that the 'Georgian royal house' is a reliable source should try to persuade others at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. When you do so mention there has been no monarchy for 200 years. See Karl von Habsburg for how a reasonable article can be written about the inheritor of a formerly royal line, in a case where there is enough notability. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I totally agree though it should not be the case of entire dynasty articles as most of them are not disputed in any sence. Just some from 5 to 10 articles only. Jaqeli (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Unless "little prince Giorgi" is the official styling of the child, I think Jaqui is a wee bit too involved with this subject emotionally to be able,to edit this topic area objectively. This is soley based on the above rant.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Two kinds of pork: The kid's status being a prince is not disputed. Only thing that needs to be recognized in the future is whether he will be a royal prince Batonishvili or will stay as it is now just a prince Tavadi. Jaqeli (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't give a rats ass. Quit using a kid as a pawn in whatever genealogical pissing match you are tinkling for.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Someone the Person

I need your assistance and advice with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World%27s_largest_municipalities_by_population&diff=next&oldid=519968694

And:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World%27s_largest_municipalities_by_population&diff=591079896&oldid=590922969

Please let me know what to do to avoid a repeat. Thank you.BsBsBs (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You do know that those edits were made over a year apart, don't you? Anyway, you were right to put the information back, but if STP tries deleting it again, bring it up on the talk page. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course I do. This is no common drive-by vandal. Anyway, I know what to do now. Thank you for the assist.11:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Numerous attempts to reset password from 50.160.177.172

Over the last 2 weeks, my account password has been reset repeatedly from this IP 50.160.177.172, who is not me. The first time I figured it was someone that forgot their username or confused it with their name on another site. however, since it keeps happening, it seems that something else could be a foot. Currently I still have access to my account, so that is good, but it is getting annoying. Additionally, I thought i should report the IP address as I may not be the only account being targeted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technerd (talk • contribs) 14:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you know they're doing it? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW from GA, USA _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The MediaWiki software informs you via e-mail of the origin of the request. -- John Reaves 14:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Special:PasswordReset is publicly available and will send instructions to the email-address associated with the user name. De728631 (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That being said, I'm not aware of a way to prevent malicious use, unless blocking prevents the use of Special:PasswordReset. Also, it is odd that someone would target a user who only had one edit (prior to this AN/I post). -- John Reaves 15:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, typically these people would want to phish your new password in case you really reset it. Technerd, you might want to do a thorough scan for malware on your computer. And I have now requested a checkuser for the IP to see if it is a proxy. De728631 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a comcast address -- probably a subscriber, rather than a corporate account. You may want to send an email to [email protected] Per [this ] link.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Croatian Vukovians

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.

---

Need to get semi-protected - Croatian nationalist under an IP address claims that it will keep vandalizing it [98] due to his dissatisfaction with some historical facts (that Serbian is also allowed in Ijekavian pronunciation and has been since..forever). Doesn't care about evidence that was given at the talk page. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for a month, in part because of this. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 27 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.

Gibson Flying V

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 somebody please take a look at the edits of Gibson Flying V (talk · contribs). Basically, this user has proposed adjusting {{Height}} (which is widely used on biographies) to allow for a cm parameter. It hasn't received the support he hoped for - I myself have raised some concerns which he appears to be proving. So to counter this, he has been mass-replacing {{Height}} (in m) with {{Convert}} (in cm) to - or so it seems to meet - push his pro-cm agenda. I am INVOLVED and more eyes on this (i.e. to tell me whether I'm over-reacting or not!) would be welcome. GiantSnowman 19:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If there is anything in the MOS about the need for wikipedia articles to express human height with a particular template or in a particular unit, I did not see it, otherwise I would have brought up the discussion there (instead I brought it up at {{Height}}. In the absence of any such guidelines, I think it's best we follow reliable sources, particularly when it comes to biographies of living persons, several of which had unreferenced, incorrect heights and weights listed which I have since corrected and provided first-rate sources for. User:GiantSnowman has thus far been unable to explain what's wrong with replacing a template which forces us into using metres with one that allows for centimetres and closer matching with reliable sources. He has only been able to make repeated accusations of bad faith against me and threats at reporting me on my talk page. I welcome more views on this and for an admin to make the long-awaited change at {{Height}} for which there appears to be consensus.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

My concern here is that you only seem to be introducing sources which support your pro-cm agenda, when in some cases there are more reliable sources which support the use of m e.g. Davide Astori. I don't see you "correcting" any heights in m, only in cm, which I find odd/concerning. You also only started this method of editing after a few editors raised concern both on your talk page and at the {{Height}} template talk page. You have been advised to wait for consensus but you seem unable to resist. GiantSnowman 20:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If I replaced sources that use metres with less reliable ones that use centimetres you'd have the ghost of a point. But I do not. Because despite what you may say, I don't have some personal agenda here. My approach is 100% source based.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

But why do you only introduce sources which use cm, when I have shown you many more which use m e.g. at Talk:Davide Astori? GiantSnowman 20:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a two-fold problem; a request at{{Height}} to add a cm parameter, and the m vs. cm debate on BLP articles. IMO, that one may oppose the display of athlete's height in cm is not really a reason to oppose the template alteration. It is a reasonable request, and if an editor would find it to be useful then it should be added. The BLP debate should happen elsewhere, and I'd say that the mass conversion to the "convert" template should be held off until that debate is concluded; if cm is decided upon, you'll be able to use the height template anyways. Also, after reading Template talk:Height#Human height is more commonly expressed in centimetres than metres, the rhetoric got a bit snippy. Deep breaths, everyone, let's not turn this into another dash vs. hyphen fiasco. Tarc (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on m vs. cm, other than the fact that m are used far more widely in my area of editing (soccerball) and I had a concern that editors would try and replace m with cm, in the face of how we edit soccerball articles on Wikipedia - and that is exactly what seems to be happening here. GiantSnowman 20:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

When {{Height}} was made, it seems humans weren't taken into account and that it was only intended for use with other structures, such as buildings. Adding a cm parameter to that is very uncontroversial stuff in my opinion. As for BLP MOS, the reasonable approach seems to be for sources (with more weight given to those of higher quality) to determine what unit is used, as well as WP:ENGVAR much in the same way it already determines how dates are formatted. Again, fairly uncontroversial stuff I would have thought. GiantSnowman, you'd do well to provide a guideline that states metres must be used. I've already provided policies that show Wikipedia content must take its cues from reliable sources, particularly in BLPs.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please, find me a diff or three where you have 'corrected' the height but kept it in m? And you have already been directed - multiple times - to Manual of Styles which (currently) use m. GiantSnowman 20:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that takes us to an example of an infobox which contains the problematic {{Height}} template. What I asked for was "a guideline that states metres must be used". And of course no such diff can be found. What possible reason would I have for displaying a person's height in metres in defiance of sources that express it in centimetres? Anyway, I don't think this is adding anything new to the discussion.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Human_height may be relevant though.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So you admit you have only being adding sources which show cm, even though sources exist which show m (again, I point you to Talk:Davide Astori) and you don't see that as being a problem? GiantSnowman 10:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't need me to point out that my edit history (along with yours) is right there for all to see. And of course I'm comfortable with it. I don't know how to make my position any clearer on this issue. As you must surely know, not all sources are created equal. As far as I can tell there is a direct correlation with a source's quality and its likelihood to use centimetres for displaying people's height. Now, I'm going to do this page's users a favour and only carry on specific cases' discussions on their talk pages (and I think everyone might appreciate if you did the same). I will point out that a very large number of biographies of living persons had incorrect and unreferenced heights and weights listed (some not containing a single source) until I came along. I want you to keep that in mind as you read the first paragraph of WP:BLP then come back here and explain how exactly I'm harming the project.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the Astori example again - you found a FIFA source which shows height in cm, and stated that was the best source available. I also found a FIFA source which shows height in m. You believe your source is superior to mine, but have not explained why, when they are both from the same organisation. You have no reason at all to use cm over m on this article (and many others) other than personal preference. GiantSnowman 11:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

See 6th sentence of previous comment. According to policy, I would have been well within my rights to remove the unreferenced information from all those BLPs. This, I think, would be more likely to be construed as unconstructive editing, don't you? Instead I chose to find first-rate reliable sources, introduce them to the articles and update the information to match the sources explicitly. Now please explain to us clearly why further harm will come to the encyclopedia if sanctions aren't brought against me. Then perhaps after that, we can discuss how appropriate language such as "You see, I know you are going to abuse this template change", "You don't know what you're talking about" and "You are pushing your weird pro-cm agenda" is for someone who has managed to be appointed an administrator.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

But you are pushing a pro-cm agenda. I fully support your introduction of cm to articles where the majority of sources use cm - but what concerns me is you introducing cm to articles where the vast majority of sources use m. GiantSnowman 12:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: From my outside perspective, I don't see any consensus for a change at {{height}}. It's not a high-visibility page, though, so opening an RFC is the correct next step. Letting the dispute spill over into the drama boards is not a correct next step. If the RFC ends in consensus to add a cm parameter to the height template, common sense should be followed for each domain. If the height of European basketball players is normally expressed in m, then it should be here. If the height of Australian cricketers is normally expressed in cm, then it should be here. You're not allowed to cherry-pick sources that support your view. Gibson Flying V, I suggest you wait for the outcome of the RFC before taking any more actions along these lines. --Laser brain (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

My point exactly. If the majority of sources display the heights of supermodels in cm, then I agree we should use cm on articles about supermodels. My issue here - as I will repeat in the hope that Gibson Flying V understands my concerns - is that he is introducing cm to articles on soccerball players, even though the vast majority of sources use m. GiantSnowman 16:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet everyone keeps saying if the cm parameter is introduced at {{Height}}... I have stopped editing height in articles and meanwhile the RfC is in its 5th day with no bites. User:GiantSnowman, common sense and policy dictate that sources are not compared merely by weight of numbers alone:1 + 1 ≠ 1 + 1 (note other differences such as date formatting). Anyway, this thread is already too long. It's going nowhere. There are plenty more appropriate forums for this discussion. I'm out.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Gibson Flying V's comment that "I have stopped editing height in articles" does not seem truthful with this edit to change m to cm today. Then there is this edit at Talk:Tiger Woods to start a new non-neutral discussion on the use of cm instead of just inviting editors to a larger discussion at the RFC.—Bagumba (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I trust you haven't neglected to compare the timestamp on my comment with that of the diff you provided. Further elaboration on what is "non-neutral" about the Tiger Woods discussion would be helpful too.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get into WP:Wikilawyering about whether it was your responsibility or mine to preface that you stopped editing height a few hours ago. Simply agreeing to my recommendation below (22:59, 22 January 2014) would be a good faith attempt to avoid any appearance of impropriety.—Bagumba (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So you'll have no problem retracting Gibson Flying V's comment that "I have stopped editing height in articles" does not seem truthful then. And your recommendation is a couple of hours too late--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that I made the suggestion 4 days ago that you stop editing heights while discussion was ongoing, the skepticism was warranted. Your continued edits were the main reason this ANI thread was even started.—Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Another administrator with apparent good faith issues. I hope this is not going unnoticed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: To me, the essential problem here is summarised by this sentence, quoted from Gibson Flying V above: As far as I can tell there is a direct correlation with a source's quality and its likelihood to use centimetres for displaying people's height. SamBC(talk) 20:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I first saw this cm v. m debate at Template_talk:Infobox_basketball_biography#Height_parameter, a thread started by Gibson Flying V. At best, a weak consensus to add cm support for basketball players, but no mandate that cm was preferred in all (if even many) cases. There may be more, but GFV has also started parallel threads at Template_talk:Height#Human_height_is_more_commonly_expressed_in_centimetres_than_metres and Talk:Human_height#Why_is_height_being_expressed_in_metres.3F, all the while switching multiple BLPs to use {{convert}} instead of {{height}}, a template which does not support cm. It's disingenuous to continue to make changes when ongoing discussions—which GFV started— to achieve a larger consensus are ongoing. Also, it's more effective to direct editors/WikiProjects to one centralized discussion, instead of starting multiple discussions, and each time failing to mention counter arguments from other pages.—Bagumba (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Recommendation Whie the RFC is ongoing, I would suggest Gibson Flying V voluntarily refrain from any edits to change m to cm, or having discussions on height outside of the existing RFC. Inviting others to join the RFC without WP:CANVASSING is fine.—Bagumba (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting to see Gibson replacing a widely-used, reliable source (which shows height in ft and inches) with another source (which shows height in his preferred format of cm)... GiantSnowman 20:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• The edit you cite is three days old. It has been suggested and he has since agreed to wait for the outcome of the RFC, which I think is a good sign that he is acting in good faith. --Laser brain (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG: While we're here, am I alone in thinking that it's actually User:GiantSnowman's own conduct (exhibit A, exhibit B, exhibit C, exhibit D plus more mentioned above and who-knows-what else I may have missed) that warrants scrutiny? Hardly exemplary and appropriate for an administrator IMO.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. Yes. Those diffs clearly show that GiantSnowman disagrees with you, nothing else (besides that GS writes boring edit summaries). So yeah, so far you're alone in thinking that there's anything here worth scrutinizing, though your effort is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ok. I thought it was within the scope of WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Boring edit summaries? Well I never! GiantSnowman 12:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The Tiger Woods article says he's 1.85 meters. Is that not 185 centimeters? Or is it the mixed-mode presentation that's the problem? That is, because it says 6 feet 1 inch, if you were to use centimeters would you then also need to change it to 73 inches? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Bugs, you might be interested in the ongoing RFC at Template talk:Height. GiantSnowman 12:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Oy! What we have there seems to be users arguing that both meters and centimeters are "right" but that choosing one over the other is siding with a "bias", yet using both is "overkill". This has "infinite loop" written all over it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman:: Can this thread be closed now? Obviously no admin action is going to be taken against Gibson Flying V and the issue seems to be under discussion at the template talk page. --Laser brain (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• By all means, I've been waiting for it to be auto-archived for a while now but people keep on commenting! GiantSnowman 15:42, 29 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.

Future Perfect at Sunrise

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 user intentionally created senseless reverts to my edits which by all means were legitimate. He furthermore created an edit way with what I believe to be different personas. He then continues for several days now to follow me around and do the exact opposite of what I say or do. He has stalked, threatened and harassed me. Also recently I left a message with another admin and he responded instead which to me meant he was one and the same person. So I would like to suggest that this juvenile who has along history of poor administration work and who has also earned a rogue like reputation, be barred from further administration work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm totally sure that will happen. But perhaps you could sully your hands with something as sordid as evidence regarding your case? Cheers. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to provide some WP:DIFFs that show these supposed actions - otherwise a) nothing can be acted upon and b) it's actually considered to be a personal attack ES&L 20:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Look out for the WP:BOOMERANG. Ansh666 20:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ephestion, stop plastering your accusations all over Wikipedia. Seriously, it's disruptive and is the last thing you should be doing following the expiry of your block. Now one is stalking or harassing you, let along using multiple accounts to do so, and if you can't find a way to raise concerns without attacking other editors then it's time for you to log off and find something constructive to do before you find yourself blocked again. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am new and don't know how to link to my contributions. Everything I have typed has been personally attacked, reverted and voted against by him. I don't know how to link but for instance: I was asking Bbb23 how to give fair use of this image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stavros_Damianides_Hyde_Park_Festival,_Channel_9_Stage.png of which I own. For the Article Stavros Damianides which Future Perfect at Sunrise decided to vote against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stavros_Damianides which is an article that has been part of Wiki for 10 years and is about Australia's best bouzouki player. The concrete evidence is in the newspaper articles of The Western Australian and Daily news. (pre internet era and Greek minority in Australia, like Robert Johnson was in USA). Not only this but he claims on my Web page that any further edits will be punished:

"You have basically made no constructive encyclopedic article contributions, ever.

So, let me make this entirely clear: I really don't know why you weren't permanently blocked a long time ago, but I guarantee that if I see you making any further edit trying to pass off your own opinion as encyclopedic facts, on any article whatsoever, I will see to it that you are blocked swiftly and permanently. This is your very last warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)"

This is just in a 3 or so day time span. Oh and if you look at my contributions in the last few days you will notice every article I have edited, he has reverted. I don't know how to link reverts but I will try here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ephestion nope i failed so here is my contrib list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 20:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ephestion: To link to your contribs, it is recommended that you write out the Wikipedia code, Special:Contribs/Ephestion, instead of the actual web address, for internal Wikipedia links. Anyway, do you have any diffs of the reverts? Epicgenius (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• [99], [100],

[101]. There are many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I looked at those diffs. I do not think that Ephestion is a very large net positive to the project, and this complaint (and the AfD, for instance) is indicative of an unwillingness to learn. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'll be less tactful. Best case, Ephestion is aggresively incompetent. Worst case ... --Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well phrased, Bbb. There's a comment on my talk page about the phrase "awesomely weird"; I think your rhetorical skills are considerably strong. Also, I agree. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well in the case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stavros_Damianides_Hyde_Park_Festival,_Channel_9_Stage.png where I own the image I am trying to upload it to help validate the Article of Stavros Damianides. The admins who have seen the article have tried to delete the article and the picture. Yet I am the owner and I am saying it's ok to use it as in a fair use way for the article. I am not releasing it to the public or giving it away. But for sake of making the article valid and proving the popularity of the musician in question the image was important. But the admins have chosen to delete the picture. I am not sure if the original owner of the article is around, but the article had a lot more content than it does now because it seems to be picked on for deletion by some bad seed admins. So in that sense how does that apply to what you just said? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 21:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If as uploader you have the copyright to it, we cannot accept it under a non-free license. If you wish to contribute it, please release it under a free license. Werieth (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are the photographer/copyright owner of the file, you're welcome to upload it, but we need to have it uploaded as a free image (under a CC-BY or GFDL-type license which still gives you attribution and other copyright controls but not as strong as normal copyright licensing). If you are not able to do that as a contributor to WP, then we cannot accept the image, even under fair use. We expect all content provided by WP editors to be freely licensed (as outlined by our Terms of Use). As the performer is deceases there is likely other media out there (probably non-free but usable under fair use) that can be included. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that Ephestion owns the copyright to the image. As for the subject performer, I don't think there are many images of him on the web as he isn't sufficiently notable to have many (his article is currently at AfD). I found one at Find A Grave (assuming it's real, when he was young) and one at a Fox website (when he was old). I can't tell if it's the same person.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ephestion has asked me on my talk page to change the license to CC-BY, but I would like to know why you're not sure on if he owns to photo before doing so (just in case). --MASEM (t) 22:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Several reasons, none of them conclusive by themselves. First, look at the section above this one to get a feel for the editor. Second, Future Perfect at Sunrise knows more about this. See this discussion on Ephestion's talk page. Third, the picture is of someone young but who died in 2001. How old would Ephestion have been if he'd taken the picture? Finally, according to the information from the upload, the picture was created by GIMP, which is an image editor. Perhaps, Ephestion found a copy of the picture in hard copy somewhere, scanned it, and then passed it off as his own. There are a lot of unsavory things going on here and no basis for accepting in good faith anything Ephestion says.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll hold off doing anything, as yes, there's enough suspicious elements (in addition to lack of history from the editor to be able to assume its free within reason.) but its best to keep in mind that this request has been made to make it a free image if we can satisfactorily state it fine. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

There are interlacing artifacts in the image. This means almost certainly that it's a photo of a TV screen, or an image ripped from videotape source. I'm not sure what year this image is supposed to date to, but it seems quite unlikely that it's from a personal camcorder. In the former cases, this means that the image was published previously and that we need a release via OTRS. In the latter, well, I propose that there's enough uncertainty as to the origin of the image to also require an OTRS-compliant release. And even then it's a crap quality image, to be honest. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It can't be any more recent than 2001 because that is when Damianides died. I'd like to note that Ephestion has now added a CC-by license but then I agree with Mendaliv that this looks much like a screenshot or a videotape still. De728631 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Just going by the "feel" of the image, in terms of quality mostly, it seems like something from the early-to-mid eighties, at least in terms of "good" videotape production (if it's crap, it could be from the early-to-mid 90s, and camcorder, all the way up to Stavros' death). The unusual resolution might make you think camcorder, since it's not a standard TV resolution (you'd expect a DVD rip to come out at 480i or 480p, and a lot of transfer hardware will put out at higher resolutions). But it does come close to the XGA resolution that 4:3 HDTV may be transmitted with (but then again it might just be a screenshot of a maximized Windows Media Player with the bottom bar cropped off, or similar). I don't know though. Regardless, the image is crappy enough that it really doesn't serve any useful purpose. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 January 27. De728631 (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Got F9'd. As an aside, the uploader has now confirmed that he does not have copyright in the image. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note: The above, starting with "Well in the case of", was originally in the "Help on who decides "fair use" and the "no equivalent" policy for pictures on Wikipedia?" section below. I'm pretty sure it was intended to be part of this discussion, so I've shifted it here. If I was wrong, then by all means toss a minnow in my direction and revert. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I think you're wrong, but I also think it's better to have it in this thread, so I'm glad you moved it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not terribly confident that this editor is going to get on well here. Now, after Bbb23 asked him a question on his talk page, he replied "I think your IP should be compared with Future Perfect at Sunrise can you do that without bias and prove that you are in-fact not the same person?". No good faith there at all. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:ALLSOCKS ES&L 12:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be honoured to be a sock of Future Perfect at Sunrise. bobrayner (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know about that. I did, however, delete the offending file after indef-blocking the editor after they started going down the list of admin posting their rant about juvenile admins. For the record, I'm sure that Fut. Perf. is more than a hundred years old. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 27 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.

Problematic editor: User:Valentfred (talk)

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 would like to see some advice or action taken regarding this particular editor. Here is the current incident at hand: In December 2013, I noticed that many of the professional wrestlers' articles started to appear in this Category:CS1 errors: dates. This is because when someone added a reference, they forgot to fill in the accessdate properly, for example forgetting to insert what year (like this edit). I went around to many articles to fix this silly CS1 error (I think at least 30 already, if not 50). I managed to trace several of these errors to the editor Valentfred. I posted on his talk page to notify him to stop making this error (Dec 4), but he continued making the error. I've found errors twice more here and also here and posted to his talk page again (Dec 7, Dec 27), even giving him a video to watch on how to cite. But even now, and yet he is still making this error. So what should I do?
Honestly, I have had much experience with Valentfred. If you read his talk page, it seems to me that he mostly ignores it. Read it, he doesn't reply to anything at all on his talk page, not to me, or to anyone. My memory is fuzzy, I have contacted him many times in the past because of his issues with not being able to source well but he has maybe replied once at the most (and not on this CS1 issue), or never. If you read his talk page, you can see that various Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling editors (and editors from elsewhere too) have warned him about disruptive edits ignoring reliable sources, adding non-reliable sources, adding original research etc. He really doesn't seem to have learnt much from an indef unblock overturn. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 02:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I've dealt with the user in the past and can affirm that he completely ignores any advice on how to become a better editor and just continues doing his stuff like he always has. Looking at his talk page, he is repeatedly told to provide multiple sources for signature moves and he continues to ignore that. He is also told how to use the same source for multiple items of one article using <ref name>, but he doesn't do that either. He is quite simply bringing the quality of the articles down. I can pretty much go through any random top wrestler article and see his handprints all over them without even checking the edit history.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Heh, it was me who told him about the ref names in Sep '12. Incredibly, he still has not followed my advice on that. I acknowledge that he's probably editing Wikipedia and adding information in good faith. Problem is, he doesn't really know how to do so without breaking the rules, or he might not care about breaking some rules, because he ignores advice to improve his edits. Every time he adds something to Wikipedia, the info is half-defective and other Wikipedia editors have to clean up after him. It's simply not fair to the rest of us. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Reading through his talk page, there's even more. I cautioned him against using unreliable sources in July 2012 and once again in June 2013. Both times I actually linked to the list of reliable sources for professional wrestling. As you see from this edit, he is still adding unreliable sources like wrestlinginc.com which I specifically cautioned him against the second time. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 11:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, on his talk page I have come across five instances of warnings (Dec '11 to May '13) due to Valentfred changing pro wrestler's heights and weights which contradict a reliable source, or without adding another reliable source. If so, why did he recently make this edit? The sources says 6'4, he edits to 6'3. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 11:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that the height change was not reverted so I fixed that. I also removed the part the user added mentioning Bubba Ray's 10 hardcore titles wins from the championship section since the article in question was about the tag team he was in with Devon and those were titles he won when he was wrestling on his own.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 174! starship.paint (talk | contribs) 07:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

{{subst:ANI-notice I don't find any urgency to acknowledge these proper "rules of editing," so please tell me why would I have to edit in well-regulated way like all of you always warn me.}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentfred (talk • contribs) 13:48, 26 January 2014

Well User:Valentfred, you agreed to edit according to those proper rules of editing when you signed up to this private website. When you decide not to, it means you violate your agreement, which usually means that someone's willing to negate your ability to continue editing :-) ES&L 20:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure why you added (or tried to add) that template considering we're already on the ANI board, but...your very response indicates that you're not here to contribute effectively to the encyclopedia. I mean, you're seriously asking why you should edit properly? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Comment from uninvolved editor) Indefinite block per WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE. Wikipedia is a collegial enterprise, and any editor who won't respond to talk page comments like this isn't going to be able to thrive here. When that is combined with an inability to recognise unreliable sources and original research, as appear to be the case with Valentfred, that really spells trouble. The blatant refusal to follow the rules (as evidenced above) makes it three strikes and out. StAnselm (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Concur with StAnselm. The blatant refusal to follow the policy and guideline expectations is a commitment to continue their disruptive behaviour. Blackmane (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Indef Block Just glancing at this users talk page, they apparently told Ribbon Salminen that they "don't care about the rules" four months ago. They have doubled down on that here, and have been warned more times than I care to count that their behavior isn't acceptable. They admittedly don't care and I can't see that changing when you consider that this nonsense has been going on since 2011.LM2000 (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Given the problems mentioned above, the long history of warnings without obvious improvement, and most of all the declaration above that the user refuses to acknowledge "rules of editing", I've indef-blocked. Anyone who thinks clue is being achieved can unblock, although I'd strongly suggest that a lot of clue is needed before that happens. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've also reverted him often enough. In fairness, the most recent didn't actually affect the article. But in the same way throwing a dud grenade in public doesn't really ruin anyone's day. Still not very nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, 28 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.

Alexrybak

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:Alexrybak fails to engage in a discussion about their edits at La donna è mobile.

• Edit history of "La donna è mobile", particularly since 24 January 2014 00:22; note the absence of any edit summary by Alexrybak.
• Edit history of Talk:La donna è mobile since 25 January 2014; note the removal of my discusion starter and its reversal a day later.
• My suggestion at User talk:Alexrybak regarding the user's action.

The user has been notified of this discussion on their talk page. I suggest to block the user for a period long enough for them to reflect on how to improve collaborative editing and how to participate in discussions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

He's touching cloth with 3RR as we speak. 14:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I see virtually no attempts to communicate with this user. -- John Reaves 15:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

This invitation to discuss changes (deleted by Alexrybak – a highly disruptive act, self-reverted about a day later) and this reminder (deleted 2 days later by Alexrybak), plus my edit summaries and a complete lack of such summaries by Alexrybak don't support your point about my lack of attempts to communicate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

interaction was attempted it seems: Talk:La donna è mobile#In_popular_culture, but with not even an acknowledgement that there was an issue, I don't see how any further communication was likely to happen happen._Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, and this has been discussed at not one, but two AN3 discussions started by FIM, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alexrybak reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result:No action ) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alexrybak reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: ), where it's been pointed out that further edit-warring will be met with blocks, so I don't see much cause to do anything further at this time. - Aoidh (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ask for a block as a punitive measure but as a means to protect the article "La donna è mobile" from ongoing disruption. The same user has now resumed his uncommunicative and disruptive edits at Largo al factotum; once again, I ask that this user be blocked. His removal of messages and notices on his talk page can only be seen as an unwillingness to communicate. I had nothing to do with the above mentioned edit warring actions and I'm not willing to bait Alexrybak into edit warring by reverting until just before the the red line. If disruptive editors can't be made to argue their edits or alternatively be stopped from preventing the improvement of articles, we might as well all go home. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours for continuing to edit war on Largo al factotum. I have a low tolerance for system gaming, and it's apparent that's what's going on here. Therefore, any further edit warring by User:Alexrybak will result in escalating blocks. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:21, 28 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.

Continuous foreign language article creation

Shitya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created a number of Arabic-language articles, and has been notified since at least last November, and again today by me, that English Wikipedia is for English articles only. The user does not communicate by user talk page at all. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Seems like a case of WP:IDHT. (BTW, I was going to take his/her username to WP:UAA, but then I realized that "shit" is actually a common spelling for certain Arabic words.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, here we go again about the usernames…

Anyway, they may need a temporary block. Which, as seen by their editing patterns (per GiantSnowman's comment below), might be as long as one year. Epicgenius (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

They also have a history of copyvio problems - but given how rarely they edit, I don't think they merit an indef - yet... GiantSnowman 19:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the user page, this user seems to be editing under his real name, احمد شعبان شتيه (Ahmad Shaban Shitya). There is a link to their LinkedIn profile, presumably their real life identity, but I am not able to access it. The edits seem to be valid, sourced, and high-quality, and in biology-related topic areas. One article they created in Arabic, Fruit waxing--(and they seem to be the principle author of the Arabic-language artivle as well--was moved to an English language title, translated, and is still there. They seem to have enough English skill to identify English-language sources, correctly add categories, and copy-paste relevant material, but not enough skill in English for rephrasing in order to avoid copy-vio issues, or to search in English for articles that may already exist on a particular topic. Ideally they need someone who can smooth over the English for them, and very simple instructions of how to use any templates that can be used to get attention for checking their edits, if such a thing exists. —Neotarf (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe Template:Not English may be the one you mean. Or perhaps Template:Proofreader. There's a bunch of others that may be helpful in Category:Wikipedia translation templates. Blackmane (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we have any Arabic speakers who could have a word? GiantSnowman 19:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:B. Fairbairn

Can I get a few eyes to take a look at this editors mass removal of images from "Foreign relations" section of country articles. I have tried to bring this up with the editor with no reply and continuing removal of images. Not sure what there problem is ...Looks like the editor does not like pictures of country leaders with Americans. Users edits seen here -- Moxy (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Those look like very disruptive and specifically targeted edits. Looks like he objects to any reference of the United States in any article that is not about the U.S. A block is probably indicated here unless the user provides a modicum of rationale for his edits - one of which is "removing photograph of woman in strangely colored suit" when referring to Clinton shaking hands with a Burmese politician. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm inclined to support the removals. Unless there's some particular significance to the visit, there doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason for articles on a country to be illustrated with a photo of someone with no connection to that country just because they happen to be visiting. (If United States were illustrated with a photo of "The president of Tuvalu visiting the United States", there would rightly be uproar.) Do you honestly believe that there's no more appropriate image to illustrate France than President Barack Obama and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France.jpg? Mogism (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Those are the images we have that illustrate (to a certain extent) the foreign relations of Tuvalu. Unfortunately (perhaps) they're provided by the Department of State under a PD license. Unless B. Fairbairn is going to replace them with something he provided and feels is more appropriate, or can justify their removal based on some kind of valid rationale, he should not be removing them wholesale without discussion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

In most cases they are the only image of the current leaders of the countries. I think best we revert then talk about the relevance in each case ..case by case. -- Moxy (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about that. "Unless B. Fairbairn is going to replace them" begs the question of whether foreign relations can and should be represented by any image at all. "Can justify their removal based on some kind of valid rationale" - he gave edit summaries and might well be ready for WP:BRD on each. "Removing them wholsale without discussion" - what, an RFC? Where, the Village Pump? NebY (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how to proceed here the editor in-question has removed all the images again ...but this time moved them to related "relations" articles. Not a bad idea but as metioned before we now have country articles that dont have pics of the leaders. Lots of clean up here.... perhaps add something like File:Supranational European Bodies-en.svg to the European countries. Anyone know why some people like this editor wont talk to people..they did communicate in the past with others? -- Moxy (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no need for clean-up. The image you propose has OR, NPOV and simple comprehensibility issues - but that's a content issue. As for the editor not responding - s/he made 2 edits after you posted on their talk page so you followed up with a peremptory message that hardly encouraged responsiveness and then opened an admin noticeboard incident. Let's just move on. NebY (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I dont undersnad what your saying ...images removed from sections talking about "foreign relations" with an image to match the text. As for your assessment of what has happen....how do you propose we get someones attention ...go to there house call them on the phone? Need editors to have valid reasons to ignore others concerns. Not responding after 15 plus edits when a concern has been raised is problematic to say the lest..no OR or NPOV problems..just someone that has a problem with American leaders.....they did not remove similar images from 150 other countries that don't have Americas in them. Mass image removal is cause for concern. -Moxy (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There was no debate whatsoever. The issue has been to WP:DRN? If the editor has removed the picture, it is still incorrect. Unless he replace with a lot better images. Noteswork (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuing Issues at "Latvian mythology": Nationalist Construct? Needs Eyes

Still some major issues going on over here. This could use more eyes. I'm not sure where else to post this. Anyway, to recap what is going on here, as I see it:

"Mythology"—as a collection of narratives detailing the gods and beings of a pre-Christian group of people and residual elements of that paradigm in a post-Christianization stage—is not defined by modern day nation-state borders. This poorly written, poorly sourced article reads like a nationalist fantasy. For example, while the Baltic pre-Christian material is most famous for its remarkable conservation of elements of Proto-Indo-European religion, the word "Indo-European" doesn't appear a single time. The article is just about everywhere divorced from scholarship on this particular branch of Baltic pre-Christian religion and folklore, and at no point even attempts to discuss the primary sources and general corpus for the material. I can see nothing deserving merging here, but the Baltic mythology article needs expansion with discussion of source material from Latvian, Lithuanian, Prussian, etc, sources (and by this I mean the languages, not modern national entities where they may currently exist), so anything confirmed here to be reliable can be merged into Baltic mythology (in appropriate context). Some of this material may be salvageable for a Latvian national romanticism article. Whether intentional or not, this material is otherwise simply propagating a nationalist fantasy.

That said, the article space seems to be watched by a bunch of pro-Latvian mythology editors intent on keeping the article just the way it is, and as a result any changes get reverted back in a few days.

In short, the article definitely needs some more eyes here; preferably those with some background in the material. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The article makes no claims about modern state, it is about beliefs of certain ethnicity (mostly prior of establishment of the state BTW). The word Indo-European does appear a single time, but this is not relevant as the article is not about Baltic paganism as such, but on what is known about beliefs of Latvian people in more recent centuries, it does not attempt to reconstruct PIE or Baltic religion, nor does it make any nationalist claims (at least despite claims above no particular reasons for tagging article content as POV have been pointed out... one could perhaps consider that there are minor issues with the lead, but attempt to correct this was reverted by Bloodofox) and all the facts in it are sourced. Use of primary sources as references is discouraged, as far as I know; the sources for research in the area (i.e. not the article's sources), though, are discussed in the article. Bloodofox is stubbornly refusing to accept any opinion besides his own, he has been largely making ad hominem arguments (everyone who disagrees with him is a nationalist) and is ignoring the fact that validity of the topic was already discussed. And right now he is canvassing ~~Xil (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A typical nationalist claim is that their people came from the earth—that they came from the land they live on now. They were always there! And as a result, there needs to be no discussion of their ultimate, scientific origin. Xil here has repeatedly done everything he can to maintain dead links to a non-peer reviewed source on this article, made sure that comparative material is gone, and has shifted his definitions whenever possible—the ultimate goal here is for Xil is apparently that a non-existent "Latvian mythology" is well represented on Wikipedia. This is despite academic sources treating it as academics do; scientifically. The truth is that Latvian is one of a handful of surviving Baltic languages and every nation-state and modern language doesn't have a "mythology" in the ancient sense. It has repeatedly been brought up no the talk page and prior discussion here that the article has serious sourcing issues. No one is saying primary sources should be used as sources; however, the corpus for this material must be discussed (see Norse mythology for how to do this). I intend to sit down and rewrite it with some proper sources, but in the mean time this article needs some more eyes and hands (in before Xil again complains about me not being able to be in front of Wikipedia as much as he'd like...). :bloodofox: (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I never claimed my people appeared from thin air that is entirely your own imagination, but I also do not see why I need to trace human migration back to Africa (or Black sea region for that matter) in an article that does not deal with earlier beliefs. The source you are so obsessed with was used only as additional reference and is an educational material that cites work of well known scientists. It was explained to you numerous times that there are reasons to believe the site will come online again and even, if it wasn't per WP:DEADREF you cannot simply remove references when they go dead. I have not "made sure that comparative material is gone" you never have added any such material to the article and I do not remember such material being in the article before rewrite (and in any case article was unreferenced back then) and I don't tend to remove content and references for no reason other than my beliefs. The primary sources are mentioned in the history section, even if not using technical terms you prefer. Numerous sources were presented to you as proof that the topic is not "non-existent" and is a matter of academic research and that "folklore" is wider notion. As it stands you have your own beliefs on what mythology is and what happens to it after Christianity appears on the scene, and on the origins of Latvian people too (no, they indeed did not appear magically when nation state was founded), unfortunately these beliefs are not supported by sources despite your insistence that only sources which do not discuss the matter should be taken into account. And finally stop complaining about having no time - it's been more than a year since you promised to rewrite article to your liking (might I point out again that using only sources that agree with you is not "proper") and somehow you have found plenty of time for tagging, edit warring and holding lengthly debates ~~Xil (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Help with Old Fashioned article

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

---

There is some edit warring and bad blood making going on at Old Fashioned. An IP User:184.190.80.94 started the day by trying to use his self-published book as a source. diff. He was reverted.

This is the exact same edit as done by a different IP weeks before here. In fact I have removed this particular cite many times over the past year from several different cocktail related articles.

The editor has continued to insert these edits or to remove links to reliable sources here and here

He left a message on my talk page here. Here's one quote indicating that his intentions may not be inline with Wikipedia's goals: "you are making things difficult for me to progress my career, but I am not doing that for you, what have I done to you?"

A different IP that might be the same person left a message on the talk here threatening to continue the disruptive behavior.

In the end it appears that the IP is using Wikipedia to promote his self-published books. I addressed these issues with him on his talk page here. He responded but I haven't gotten back to him yet but it appears that he is still having some difficulties understanding Wikipedia.

I'm looking for some help in watching the page, semi-protecting the page, and/or maybe someone else could reach out to the IP since he feels I have a personal grudge against him as well as using Wikipedia to sell my books ("willing to bet all those 15's are you "simmons" gibbons" makes sense, considering the book has NOTHING TO DO with this drink, but yet its here, a bunch. now it makes sense." from this edit summary (by the way, I am not Marcia Simmons and I don't really see how SQGibbon even hints at that.)

Since posting a message on his talk page he has not edited that article again but it feels like this isn't going to end today and since as he admits in his talk page response here "but ive been trying to submit this information for over a year and you continue to disrespect me." it's likely that this behavior is going to continue. SQGibbon (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Notified the IP about this discussion here. SQGibbon (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• semi-protected. The editor in question said here that they can "do this all day everyday", something we'd prefer to avoid. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

maybe it's not the best idea to have an alcoholic govern a drinks page? just saying.. "I do happen to have a keen interest in mixed drinks and pay closer attention to those articles but that's the extent of it." you are clearly throwing your personal bias against my contributions. why dont you read one of my articles or books and really learn something. AND YES BARTENDING ABSOLUTELY HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH RESEARCHING DRINKS! how would you know how that drink is made today if you didnt work in a bar? wow.........

why is the false definition of a cocktail on both cocktail and old fashioned pages? this makes no sense. They are two different drinks entirely. The way you know that 1806 article is false is because bitters was not produced in america until 1824, so how could it be used in 1806 if it didnt exist yet?

or look at the usage of the word spirit, spirit means specifically something religious in the 19th century absolutely nothing to do with drinks, read an oxford.

I could point out a million things, can anyone understand why this is so frustrating, I cant even fix one thing, and there are tons to fix. I have 13 open tabs all wiki pages you all have directed me too, really? 13 tabs just to post that the old fashioned was made with brown sugar and brandy and named after a horse? really?

so ridiculous, read it yourself, GOOGLE BOOKS PROJECT and the LIBRARY of CONGRESS 1806, read it. are my only references I use, so if they aren't good enough REMOVE THE PAGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.80.94 (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/#q=old+fashioned+made+with+brown+sugar&tbm=bks

only about 1000 reliable third party sources there, but whatever. STOP HATING and apologize for being a hater, be a real man and apologize. and for so called "geeks" you guys sure do take a long time to get back and type to people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.80.94 (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=jIMXAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA91&dq=old+fashion+cocktail&hl=en&sa=X&ei=txrnUtTPHYjboAT5kIGYDw&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=old%20fashion%20cocktail&f=false

that book dates to 1741 but whatever, I forgot we totally discredit anyone who isn't wondrich my bad, totally forgot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.80.94 (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

nobody answers me on the talk pages, but when I make an edit you remove it? wtf? I asked if I can change something, nobody said anything but when I do its a problem I have clearly shown I am an expert, if not the worlds leading expert. so why cant I be acknowledged? you guys are crazy ... like really crazy, it's clear this gibbons guy loves drinks and I insulted his intelligence by proving that everything he thought he knew about drinks was wrong and now he will never let me live it down. Thats why he supports wondrich, can we please assign another user without personal sentiment to these drink articles please. someone who can look at the information with an open mind instead of "oh well this guy I read about is right". Dude you know how foolish your hero is? He's whole life is based on calling drinks this and that, like "if you add this, this drink becomes a 4th degree" no it fucking doesnt, one book published one name about a drink doesnt make it a drink. The same recipes were called so many different things over the years with maybe one or two minor changes. But thats how drinks are.

Old bars had nothing maybe gin rack brandy and afew french cordials, thats it, so of course all the drinks are going to be very similar, because you didnt have much to work with. You can only make so many sandwiches with bread and cheese? you understand?

Jesus, please pray for these souls, they are so lost and misguided. They believe in false idols and refuse to acknowledge truth. Please let them bring joy and peace, with compassion and understanding, rather than them being filled with jealousy, envy, and hatred.

again, please assign a user to these pages who has no interest in them, so they don't develop personal biased like homeboy. He had the audacity to say to me, "I shouldnt point out every mistake that other contributors have made" LIKE WTF?!@#?!@?# that IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO ME! Every little mistake, it doesn't matter what I do, it's a riddle. Because no matter how I post the information, even if from third party sources, *I* can even find discrepancies in external links, self promotion, citations, etc.., so of course that hating guy can.

gibbons has caused other problems for other users in the past here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SQGibbon#Do_you_have_no_life_.3F

just like that, he takes a personal interest in something and feels the need to disregard anything that contradicts his beliefs. Please don't allow this user to fool you, hes clearly a hater who stalks people, like me and this user and im sure many others. Youre so big and bad behind your keyboard. Seven years huh, I wonder what I can piece together from that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.80.94 (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

a clear violation of wiki policy, maybe we should have someone who can follow guidelines and procedures regulate who is following guidelines and procedures, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.80.94 (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• IP 184, one more personal insult, one more harassing remark, and you're blocked. Stop talking about that editor, and if you could possibly concentrate on one thing at a time, argue on the talk page why that source of yours is reliable. How many YouTube videos you claim to have made is not important. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I would think if the videos pertain directly to cocktails and cocktail history they are important. My thoughts don't matter here though. What about the books and articles? and as I said, I would love to talk on the talk pages, nobody responds just like here, nobody responds, silence is approval, I think someone smart said that. what if nobody answers the talk pages? and it's pretty clear regardless of my formatting, and strict regulation to wiki policies my post will still be removed. Your group has stated "ask a question" and I have,.... several infact, and yet no answers. Okay great, my videos mean nothing, then so does my dvd, my podcast, my books, my websites, my articles, all pertaining to cocktail history? I would like to add information, you guys would not like that information added, I have shown you literally thousands of references above that this information is infact, accurate and true, but it will be rejected for some small mistake like formatting or grammatical error, like I said "YOU WILL ALWAYS FIND WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR"

the real question to ask is, is there anyone you can prevent that user from preventing my edits, because if they are so horribly wrong, why not let some other editor edit them? Does this fly with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.80.94 (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's called an interaction ban, but that will only be a last resort. Epicgenius (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• No, that's not the real question. Let's get some facts first. Regardless of who you are, the edits are all to promote this book, a self-published book that really needs a copyeditor. So, no publisher, and thus no indication that this is a reliable source: it should not be used as a references, and that's basically what was in the links you have been provided with. Here is another example of the book being spammed. The facts are, then, that you are adding a book you wrote yourself as a reference in this encyclopedia; the book is not published by a publisher we can have any kind of faith in; you are spamming. Simple. So, no matter how many videos you made and drinks you poured, and I'm sure you make them well, that book may not be added. If you continue to do that, the IP address or account used will be blocked, and possibly a filter concocted to block the additions in the first place. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

the policy stated as I posted above, that it MAY be added if it directly pertains to the subject at hand. In which it does, either way that particular book along with 20 or so others are also available in paperback, but not online. I have a publisher but I don't have a link to sell them online because the process is much different. If you ever submitted anything to barnes and nobles or books a million you know the process is ridiculous and you arent always picked up. You cant sumbit to amazon if you already wrote it, you have to write paperbacks through them. Again, it says the same things about websites, why are all those websites allowed? I would think a book self published or not has way more creditability than a website. I literally could throw up a site in 5 minutes backing my claims, doesnt hold much wait. So may I suggest removing all the websites if my book cant be added, its only fair. This is your logic bro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.80.94 (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

here are my references I used to write that book you mentioned, like I care about promoting one book, I have 66 dude, seriously I care less.

extended content that is messing with my Wa

References New Orleans as I found it - Page 25 Edward Henry Durell - 1845 – One played the fiddle, another beat the drum, and the third dealt out nectar in the form of brandy- cocktail. ... Boy, bring up four glasses of brandy-cocktail immediately ! " To go on with my story, sir : the three partners succeeded ... Hesperos, or, Travels in the West - Page 13 Mrs. Houstoun (Matilda Charlotte) - 1850 – Their ' custom of an afternoon,' was to prepare and drink a favourite compound, which went by the name of ' brandy- cocktail.' The avowed object was to stimulate their appetites for dinner, (though for this there appeared no absolute ... The New sporting magazine - Page 131 1841 – ses he — " that wos a cocktail," but here's so far up from the bar-room, that the ice all melted in the first tenflites, an' now, the heat o'my hand has eivapo- rated all the brandy .'" Now, I call that an ill-convenient distance ... Life in the West: back-wood leaves and prairie flowers; rough ... - Page 121 Morleigh - 1842 come, let me hear it, John," said the host, at the same time ordering the bar-keeper to prepare a brandy cocktail. " I'll tell you," said John, smacking his lips and eyeing the tumbler in which the brandy cocktail was concocting ... LIFE IN THE WEST BACK-WOOD LEAVES AND PRAIRIE FLOWERS - Page 121 1842 – come, let me hear it, John," said the host, at the same time ordering the bar-keeper to prepare a brandy cocktail. " I'll tell you," said John, smacking his lips and eyeing the tumbler in which the brandy cocktail was concocting ... hesperos: or, travels in the west - Page 13 mrs. hqustoun - 1850 – Their ' custom of an afternoon,' was to prepare and drink a favourite compound, which went by the name of ' brandy- cocktail.' The avowed object was to stimulate their appetites for dinner, (though for this there appeared no absolute ... Lonz Powers: or, The Regulators: A romance of Kentucky - Page 316 James Weir - 1850 – ... and flirt away in disgust at the thought of a young lover drinking a " cocktail ;" for, you must understand, ... and fashionable) drank ambrosia in the very presence of Venus herself; and if a good " brandy cocktail" is not equal to ... The clockmaker: or, The sayings and doings of Sam Slick, of ... - Page 129 Thomas Chandler Haliburton - 1839 I must have a brandy cocktail to cool it. But I 've seen that feller afore ; I know his voice and the cut ... for I need your advice; but, for the love of Heaven, give me some brandy and water, for I am e'en a'most dead, — and he gave a ... The clockmaker, or, The sayings of Samuel Slick, of Slickville: ... - Page 147 Thomas Chandler Haliburton - 1840 Well, says I, I am no ways pitikilar ; suppose we have brandy cocktail, it 's as 'bout as good a nightcap as I know on. Done, said he, with a friendly tap on the shoulder that nearly dislocated my neck ; I like a man that knows his own ... The clockmaker; or The sayings and doings of Samuel Slick, of ... - Page 147 Thomas Chandler Haliburton, Samuel Slick (fict. name.) - 1840 – Well, says I, I am no ways pitikilar ; suppose we have brandy cocktail, it 's as 'bout as good a nightcap as I know on. Done, said he, with a friendly tap on the shoulder that nearly dislocated my neck ; I like a man that knows his own ... Chambers' Edinburgh journal: Volume 9 - Page 407 1841 – Well, says I, I am no ways pitikilar ; suppose we have brandy cocktail, it's as 'bout as good a nightcap as I know on. Done, said he, with a friendly tap on my shoulder that nearly dislocated my neck ; I like a man that knows his own ... Chambers's Edinburgh journal: Volume 9 - Page 407 William Chambers, Robert Chambers - 1841 – 'Well, says I, I am no ways pitikilar ; suppose we have brandy cocktail, it's as 'bout as good a nightcap as I know on. Done, said he, with a friendly tap on my shoulder that nearly dislocated my neck ; I like a man that knows his own ... The living age ...: Volume 4 - Page 155 Eliakim Littell, Robert S. Littell, Making of America Project - 1845 – I go and call for two or three glasses of brandy-cocktail more than I want every day, just for the sake of talking to her. She always says, ' What will you be pleased to have, sir?' ' Somethin',' says I, 'that I can't have,' lookin' at ... The Monthly review - Page 559 1844 – I go and call for two or three glasses of brandy- cocktail more than I want every day, just for the sake of talking to' her. She always says, ' What will you be pleased to have, sir V "Somethin'," says I, "that I can't have," lookin' at ... The works of Lord Byron: Part 12 - Page 17 Baron George Gordon Byron Byron, Thomas Moore - 1843 – Young man,' says Haman, says he, ' will you oblige a suffering labourer in the vineyard with a brandy cocktail?' 'What VOL. II. ... A diary in America: with remarks on its institutions. Part second: Part 2, Volume 1 - Page 123 Frederick Marryat - 1839 – ... hardly swallowed his gin sling, and replaced his segar, when, in comes Mr. D. " A. how are you ?" — " Ah ! D. how goes it on with you ?" — " Well, I thankey — what shall we have ? " — " Well, I don't care ; I say brandy cocktail. ... The attaché, or, Sam Slick in England: Volume 1 - Page 8 Thomas Chandler Haliburton - 1844 – I go and call for two or three glasses of brandy-cocktail more than I want every day, just for the sake of talking to her. She always says, ' What will you be pleased to have, sir?' ' Somethin',' says I, ' that I can't have,' ... The Atlantic magazine: Volume 1 - Page 346 Robert Charles Sands - 1824 – Every mouth was open with offers of rum-sling, brandy- cocktail, gin-twist, or any other peace-offering which was likely to appease the offended dignitary. After looking around him two or three times, with eyes that resembled those of a ... Tait's Edinburgh magazine: Volume 7 - Page 96 William Tait, Christian Isobel Johnstone - 1840 – "Well, I don't care; I say a brandy cocktail." — " Give me another." Both drink, and the shilling is thrown down on the counter. Then B. comes up again. " A., you must allow me to introduce my friend C." — " Mr A." — shake hands— " Most ... Second series of a diary in America with remarks on its institutions - Page 43 C. B. Marriyat - 1840 Well, I thankey — what shall we have V — Well, I don't care ; I say brandy cocktail." — " Give me another," both drink, and the shilling is thrown down on the counter. Then B. comes up again. " A. you must allow me to introduce my ... The Literary gazette: A weekly journal of literature, science, and ...: Volume 23 - Page 802 William Jerdan, Lovell Reeve, John Mounteney Jephson - 1839 – 'Well, I don't care; I say brandy cocktail.' — 'Give me another;' both drink, and the shilling is thrown down on the counter. Then B. comes up again. ' A. you must allow me to introduce my friend C ' Mr. A.' — shake hands ' most happy ... Littell's living age: Volume 4 - Page 155 Eliakim Littell, Robert S. Littell - 1845 – I go and call for two or three glasses of brandy-cocktail more than I want every day, just for the sake of talking to her. She always says, ' What will you be pleased to have, sir?' ' Somethin',' says I, 'that I can't have,' lookin' at ... THE MONTHLY REVIEW, FROM JANUARY TO APRIL INCLUSIVE. 1840. VOL.I - Page 220 1840 – Mr. A. has hardly swallowed his gin sling, and replaced his segar, when in comes Mr. D. ' A. how are you?' — 'Ah! D. how goes it on with you?' — 'Well, 1 thankey : what shall we hare?' ' Well, I don't care ; I say brandy cocktail. ... The attaché; or, Sam Slick in England, by the author of 'The ... - Page 5 Thomas Chandler Haliburton, Samuel Slick (fict. name.) - 1845 – I go and call for two or three glasses of brandy-cocktail more than I want every day, just for the sake of talking to her. She always says, ' What will you be pleased to have, sir ?' ' Somethin',' says I, ' that I can't have,' lookin' ... A quarter race in Kentucky: and other sketches, illustrative of ... - Page 144 William Trotter Porter - 1846 He was remarkably quick and dapper ; his inquiries were always abbreviated — for instance, a gin cocktail was "gin-cock?" plain brandy was "brandy p ?" and then there was " brandy wat-?" " brandy sug-? ... The drama in Pokerville: The bench and bar of Jurytown, and other ... - Page 144 Everpoint - 1843 He was remarkably quick and dapper ; his inquiries were always abbreviated — for instance, a gin cocktail was "gin-cock?" plain brandy was "brandy p ?" and then there was " brandy wat-?" " brandy sug-? ... Transatlantic sketches, comprising visits to the most interesting ... - Page 368 Sir James Edward Alexander - 1833 For the receipt-book let the following be copied: — First, Cocktail is composed of water, with the addition of rum, gin, or brandy, as one chooses — a third of the spirit to two-thirds of the water; add bitters, and enrich with sugar ... Anglo American: a journal of literature, news politics, the drama, ...: Volume 4 Alexander D. Paterson - 1845 - No preview Guide to the Turf; or, Pocket Racing Companion for 1851; ... - Page 141 W. Ruff - 1850 – 4 fur., over eight hurdles, were won, in four heats, bv Plaintiff (Brandy), beating Rosa (Darling), Topihorn (Archer). ... Charlton 0 8 to 1 agst Ballinafad, 8 to 1 agst Cocktail, 4 to 1 n?st Candlewick, and 8 to 1 agst Spot. ... A subaltern's furlough - Page 34 Edward Thomas Coke - 1833 – ing the intervals between meals, is besieged by a host of applicants for iced mint-julaps, brandy, egg-nog, gin- cocktail, rum and water, gin and water, Port san- garee, and all the various combinations and mixtures of liquors ...

really bro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.80.94 (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) S/he threated to delete all the other refs from the article (seems like the if-I-can't-do-it-no-one-can school of thought), but I told him/her about it. I'm logging off soon but if s/he does just that, I would have absolutely no objection to a block. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah hows that blocking power working out for you? not so big and bad now are you? "but the words hurt" go cry somewhere else. AND YES I HAVE THAT SCHOOL OF THOUGHT because its the way it is. why in the would would you make something unfair that didn't have to be? that makes no sense, but then again i'm not ugly or fat or a stupid piece of shit throwing around my internet dick thinking im big and bad by blocking people you cant even block. I'm not making threats and i'm not violating policy, I want to add my contributions. I'm sorry I find it hard to think like you guys, but you know not what you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.236.0.52 (talk • contribs)

Oh, but you ARE making threats, and you ARE violating the policies you agreed to when you clicked "Save". Can't you take 5 seconds, step back, and review your edits and interactions in a mature, detached manner? ES&L 10:22, 28 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.

Possible copyright violations by a new editor

Copyvios have been deleted. No further admin action needed here. De728631 (talk) 10:30, 29 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.

---

User:Banshee01 has been uploading images on Survivor-related biographical articles and hasn't even bothered to say where he's gotten them from or what their copyright status is. So far he's done it to Amber Mariano and Amanda Kimmel. He appears to be a new user, but he obviously needs some coaching here since he's really being a vandal. I've seen you administrator dudes know how to bite the newcomer vandals, so he either needs to get with the program or be blocked. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Whoa, hang on a minute; that's not exactly the purpose of this board. Remember, we were all new once, and I don't really see him/her as being a vandal. Besides, s/he hasn't edited at all since you left the informational message on his/her talk page, so let's just see what happens from there. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

These two images were in fact copyvios but I agree with Erpert that this is not a reason to rush to this board. And as to getting with the program: Survivorfan1995, have you not seen the big orange sticker on top of this page that says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page"? De728631 (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I've seen it. Somebody else took me to the noticeboard once and didn't tell me about it, so I didn't think it'd be a big deal. Besides, I didn't really wanna make Banshee01 mad at me. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Survivorfan1995, read WP:BOOMERANG. Noteswork (talk) 09:45, 29 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 talk:96.25.43.128

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 IP user has been reverted by me and another editor 4 times now, warnings were given on the talkpage in addition to explaining in the edit summary that the changes did not match the sources given in the Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States article. IP failed to explain anything in their edit summary until the 4th undoing of an edit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Diffs? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:04, 28 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.

Mass removal by User:OccultZone at Sati (practice)

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.

---

Sati (practice) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is unacceptable. I use well-referenced material, for example Anand Yang, and this kind of unargumented mass removal by talk cannot be warranted???Arildnordby (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd start by reading WP:BRD, and then discussing this on the article talk page as recommended. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

He is persisting, no arguments being given. And no, he doesn't give any arguments for removals of such as YangArildnordby (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) I think you need a little more proof before you accuse someone of sockpuppetry. Anyway, such a request should be filed at WP:SPI. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Okay, now I see it. I'm going to NAC this and continue the conversation up there. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:23, 28 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 vandal: 86.178.82.162

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 submit vandalisms on articles TVP1 & Numberjacks. It is used by IP vandal: 86.178.82.162. Here's the proof: Numberjacks - in Polish "Numberryaxes". It is incorrect, official title of this series in Poland is "Supercyfry". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.185.210.160 (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The proper place to submit routine vandalism is WP:AIV. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A report AIV will not be actioned upon at this time as the user has not been warned about their vandalism, or this ANI thread (just let them know about this post). --AdmrBoltz 18:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Incidentally, IP, "submitting vandalism" suggests that you're doing the vandalism yourself. You might want to rephrase that next time. ;) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:15, 28 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.

Revdel request and possible compromised account

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

---

I would like to ask if someone can revdel this unprovoked offensive comment on my talk page. Another concern is that the person who did it claims to be an admin on his user page, which suggests he is either lying or that his account may be compromised if he really is an admin. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wow, that insult is ridiculous. I think edits can only be revdeleted if they give out personal information (I could be wrong though), but to address your other concern, his account wasn't compromised, he's just pretending to be an admin. He's already blocked for 31 hours, but given those two edits, I suggest lengthening the block to indefinite. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• The user is not an admin, rollbacker, or crat (the "verify" link in each userbox can be used to check that). I've removed those userboxes. The account appeared constructive early on, and then took a sudden turn to the trollish on 1/26. This would seem likely to be the current problem; if someone doesn't beat me to it, I'm going to up the block to indef as a compromised account. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Erpert, I understand that you're trying to be helpful, but the information you provided The C of E was incorrect. The edit fell under revdelete criteria #2 and I have removed it accordingly, and the account does indeed appear to be possibly compromised. There's no need to rush in and comment on so many ANI threads; I know the intention is good, but it isn't necessary. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Right. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked Indef by Fluffernutter. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:29, 28 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.

Cornerstone Motorcycle Ministry battleground

Avergobbe (talk · contribs), WeAreFaithful (talk · contribs), and 129.170.195.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are using Cornerstone Motorcycle Ministry as a battleground. Avergobbe has posted vague legal threats in the article, a direct legal threat at User talk:WeAreFaithful. They are bickering over who is the actual president of this organization, and who owns the copyrights and trademarks. Neither is citing reliable third party sources. We'd all be better off if we could AfD Cornerstone Motorcycle Ministry but there's just enough coverage to keep the article. I'm going to try to improve the article with the Christianity Today source (any help?) and shift the focus away from this unverifiable battle over control of the organization. Requesting temporary blocks and/or page protection as needed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've given all three editors notices about edit warring, which they don't appear to have been given before. If the reverting continues after this, blocks will be in order. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The notability of that organization is weak. It's way below the standard for WP:NONPROFIT. The references are a few brief articles in very local small-town newspapers. Send to AfD? John Nagle (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Weak indeed, but good enough for a page. Noteswork (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Problematic editor: User:KikeFolan (talk)

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 would like to see some advice or action taken regarding this particular editor. We have some problems with him. He makes controversial editions and we try to talk with him. However, he never answer us and still doing his editions, (now, vandalism) He was blocked sometimes (for example, he reverted some editions in OVW Heavyweight Championship and was blocked) Now, he still doing the same in WWE and his editions were reverted, but he never listen. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I blocked and unblocked Kikefolan, I'm running on a delay here with some wonky internet and didn't see your comment. -- John Reaves 00:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Please ignore this comment. -- John Reaves 02:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Well, here's the thing. You didn't properly notify them (you should, so do that ASAP). If you had, I could have considered blocking them for being non-communicative and for editing against consensus. We might still do that, of course. I think you should give a couple of the most egregious recent diffs, with brief explanations of what's wrong with them--after you notify the editor of this discussion. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I know. i tried to talk with him a lot of times in the past, but he never answered. For example, in the OVW Championship, sources said Jamin Olivencia won the title on April. However, he changed to March. I talked to him, I showed him sources, but he never answered and changed the date to March. Also, I have problems with this user in Spanish Wiki and it's the same thing. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
    • What do you know? That you still haven't notified him of this discussion? [Drmies on the run.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.40.38 (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I can see 4 quick reverts. And no discussion. Noteswork (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in the behavior issue, the user is continuing to disruptively revert on WWE without discussion. STATic message me! 22:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Username

Is the editor's username permissable? BMK (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• I was considering that as well, BMK. As a furriner I can't assess that, really. I'll gladly see an argument and explanation, if you want to offer one. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I did it. However, since December 2012, he never answered us. He was block twice, warned by 7 users and he never reacted. About the name (he was warned for the name too)... I don't know. I'm from Spain and, usually, Kike (or Quique) its a common name, diminutive from Enrique (Henry) EDIT: OK, I recently discovered what Kike means. Yes, kind of offensive. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
    • In American English, "kike" is certainly a harsh and derogatory term for a Jewish person. I'm not Jewish, but I believe most Jews would find it offensive. (As with most other ethnicities, there are numerous slang terms for Jews, but I think that "kike" is considered to be the equivalent of "nigger".) I wasn't aware of the usage in Spain - if that's what the editor intended, then perhaps they would be willing to change to "Qique", which I believe is meaningless in English, or "Enrique"? Perhaps someone could ask? BMK (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This term is extremely offensive in US English. I know Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source, but when you've got 28 entries all calling it offensive, there's a trend. See here. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Given the meaninglessness of "Folan" by itself, this is plainly not being used as a slur: it's kǐːkɛː, not kaɪk. To paraphrase the helperbot's comments at WP:UAA, "shit" naturally occurs in many names from [insert part of world here], so we must be careful not to block people whose usernames with "shit" come from that context, unless of course they're causing problems aside from their usernames. The same is true here: let's leave KikeFolan alone except for the (admittedly serious) behavioral issues. Nyttend (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose its entirely possible the user's intent was not intentionally offensive, but would that excuse a user name N*ggerFolan or C#ntFolan--the only two words I can think of that are more derisive for a biological class of people in American English? Does that have to be brought up as a separate issue or in a separate place? I am not looking for the user himself to be blocked, I just happened upon this and am totally ignorant of other issues. But if this name can't be ruled out, what name can? μηδείς (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it within our operational abilities to ask the owner of the account if the term "Kike" is a reference to "Jews"? We may not have official policy on this but this would seem to be a way forward unless there are strong objections to such an inquiry. Bus stop (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

If "Nigger" or "Cunt" is a common name or name-abbreviation in some part of the world, and if the context doesn't demand that it be interpreted as stand-alone, we need to assume good faith. AGF on a username is very different from AGF on the username's operator's actions: bad behavior unrelated to the username is no reason to object to the username, and when the username can fit into a broader context, we need to see evidence of intentional disruption in the username choice before objecting to it. Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Is your point to be intentionally offensive? There's no such exception to offensive user names. There's no AGF to an editor who doesn't respond to direct questions on his talk page about an offensive name. Wikipedia:User_name#Disruptive_or_offensive_usernames doesn't say anything about an offensive name being fine as part of a user name if it's an abbreviation in some part of the world. The word k*ke is highly offensive in English, the user edits in English, the user's been challenged about the name and not responded. An indefinite block on that basis will allow the user to appeal and explain the reason why the name is neither offensive nor unjustified based on some imaginary language. I find it impossible to argue otherwise, and won't be commenting further. μηδείς (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the links in the user's block log? This user is quite active at es:, and Spanish is not a made-up language. It's not my fault that you're offended by something totally innocuous in the user's home wiki. Are you sure that "Medeis" is inoffensive in every single language of the world? If not, you'd best be careful visiting other wikis, lest you be blocked for an offensive username. Imposing English username standards on someone with a valid username from another wiki goes against the spirit of WP:SUL, just as it would for the Dutch to block a "User:Fokker" because of the meaning of "fok" in Dutch. Nyttend (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm sorry I brought it up. Given the information about its use as a name in Spanish, and the editor's history on Spanish Wikipedia, I'm quite prepared to believe that there was intent to offend in the name, but the user nonetheless should be sensitive to its effect. If they're not willing to change to "Qique" or "Enrique" or something else entirely, perhaps they would consider putting an explanatory note about the name on their user and talk pages, so that people who are concerned can at least get the same explanation that HHH Pedrigree provided here? BMK (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and this is not the same thing as "shit" turning up more or less randomly in a string of letters, the capitalization makes that clear. BMK (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The username has a reasonable explanation, PC wardens should pipe down and stop seeing the negativity they "want" to see. We're an international encyclopaedia, we even have Kike (disambiguation) which would have helped explain this to those who automatically jumped to the instant conclusion that the user name was offensive. If "shit" or "cunt" turned up in a user name, it'd be unlikely to be a foreign language issue, it'd be disruptive. (Although we do have Scunthorpe, mishit, shitake, shittimwood and shittah to consider...) "kike" on the other hand is just a regular shortening of a common name used by Spanish-language speakers. Time to close this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this thread is definitely pointless, someone should archive it expeditiously. Epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no telling where KikeFolan (talk · contribs) got that highly offensive username, but now that he's been indef'd, this discussion could be closed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, again, it may just be a spelling if a common Spanish diminutive, and therefore not inherently offensive, so long as the pronunciation is made clear. I actually made the same mistake when he first started at en.wiki and reported him then, leading to his first block. It was re index shortly thereafter when another editor explained the situation. The problem is a) there's no good way to show the pronunciation in every use of the name, so I really should be changed regardless, and b) he's a terribly uncommunicative, obstinate editor who keeps editing against consensus disruptively. I would also note that he seems to have a habit of making the same edits logged out. Check the edit history of List of current champions in WWE, where he and a pair of IPs that are likely him logged out keep putting in the same obnoxious, non-consensus, MOS-violating nonsense over and over, despite being reverted repeatedly by multiple editors, and told not to on at least one of the IP's talk pages . In short, I don't think this indef is necessarily going to stop him, but at least when he next tries to intentionally edit logged out we know he's socking to evade a well-deserved block. oknazevad (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is really my fault, and I apologize: I should put two ("Kike") and two ("Spanish") together. Not offensive in Spanish, intent to offend hard to prove. Either way, though, the problem is, for now, hypothetical. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 30 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.

Suicide comments

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.

---

Not sure, but this may need admin attention. Editor not notified, as user talk page is semi'd. 54.226.217.226 (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks more like a doomsday fanatic, the suicide aspect is specuation. Concerns should be directed to emergency at wikimedia.org though, not here. -- John Reaves 23:49, 28 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.

WMF has been notified, as discussed on ref desk talk page. Better safe than sorry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Outing.

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 someone please take a look at Talk:Vemma, specifically the tail end of Talk:Vemma/Archives/2014#MLM vs, Affiliate marketing and Talk:Vemma/Archives/2014#NY Post Ref. I have been editing the article for a while, and Jcsquardo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently referred to me by first name (dif). I have never publicly linked my name to my account, and I don't know how he or she found my first name. This is pretty creepy, and seems like a clear violation of WP:OUTING to me. This editor seems to think that I shouldn't be bothered if I have nothing to hide, which shows a gross misunderstanding of, well, reality, but Wikipedia policy, as well. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I can see how it would be possible to research your information, however, I will leave a note with Jcsquardo telling him why it is not appropriate. -- John Reaves 23:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(Redacted) John Reaves, duly noted I won't reveal any other secret information on this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcsquardo (talk • contribs) 01:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Do normal people do Google searches for the username of every editor they disagree with? If you want to be 'professional', as you condescendingly say on my talk page, perhaps you should focus on edits, not editors. Grayfell (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jcsquardo: It appears that you haven't understood what we've been telling you, since you've done it again in this thread: it is inappropriate to discuss other users' personal details. It is inappropriate to discuss how someone can find another user's personal details offwiki. It is inappropriate to tell another user that you know everything about them and oh by the way, you don't like them tattling so they'd better not do that again. Please consider this your final warning: if you discuss another user's off-wiki identity on Wikipedia when they haven't disclosed it themselves on Wikipedia already, or if you insinuate that you have another user's personal information that you are holding in reserve, you will be blocked with no further warnings. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That link (diff) shows Jcsquardo threatening another user at 01:34, 29 January 2014 in a section titled "Outing". A wikilawyer could argue that there is no threat because Jcsquardo is promising to not reveal personal information, but the promise involves telling anyone interested how they can get that information. Fluffernutter's above statement is good, but I think Jcsquardo needs something even stronger with a clear statement at their talk being the minimum. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Johnuniq. This crosses the line and is actionable. Jusdafax 07:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems like you interacted for months already. There's sure some trace. I know its incorrect to call by name, unless it is allowed by User, breach indeed. Noteswork (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I had removed this last comment by Noteswork, since I couldn't make heads or tails of it. However, since user CombatWombat42 saw fit to restore it, I have to ask: who is "you"? Trace of what? Etc. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

By "trace" I was pushing a point, that there can be some obvious way, from where other user got to know the real name of this person. Since it is unknown to us. I tried to pin point that it may have happened through some process. He may have copy/pasted the edits by the user around, and search, or he may have seen similar attitude outside wikipedia. So he would become sure, that this is him. Thanks Noteswork (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Noteswork: Please don't speculate about how to find other users' identities. I understand that you're just trying to figure out what happened here, but your insight isn't furthering this conversation, and is in fact likely to lead it down another problematic path. And as a side note, might I suggest that you back away from commenting on this board? I see that you have been commenting on nearly every thread today, but your comments are generally not of much use, and in some cases they are very confusing to everyone else. It would probably be better if you got some more experience with Wikipedia before you got heavily involved in administrative areas like this noticeboard and WP:SPI. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Noteswork's edits are more odd than just the comments at ANI. They have commented today on three different SPIs, none of which, as far as I know, are they involved in. Even for an experienced user, that would be unusual, but Notework has a total 127 edits since first editing in October of last year.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Will an admin please issue a final warning at User talk:Jcsquardo in the terms used by Fluffernutter above. Then this can be closed. The warning should be on the user's talk so there can be no wikilawyering like "I didn't see that at ANI", and so it can be found if needed in the future if someone is investigating another incident, and to reinforce community consensus on this kind of abuse. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 30 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.

reporting self-threat user for blocking and rev deleting

Reported to WMF, let's just leave this to them. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have reported this editor to emergency. According to policy such editors are also to be reported to admins for blocking and rev deleting. This editor is fresh off a 30-day block from Dec 19, and has been warned repeatedly of their disruptive edits. Asking to predict how many suicides there will be in 2014 at the Ref Desk diff is disruptive at best, and suggesting we know the solution diff at their talk page amounts to self-threat, as do edit summaries about life sucking and how we are all f**ked. If this is not the place to seek blocking and possible rev delete, please advise where is. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC) There is a section two above this one about the same issue that I closed to minimize drama. As you have already reported the user, I suggest removing this section to avoid undue attention and letting WMF handle the issue. -- John Reaves 04:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I just reviewed their older edits (and realized I've blocked them before!)they seem to be focused solely on Doomsday prophecies, not necessarily self-harm. -- John Reaves 04:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I disagree. When the user creates a thread entitled "suicide" and talks about how life sucks and "the solution" they are not talking about a comet coming to hit the earth, even if they do also mention doomsday scenarios as well. I am also asking whether this is the proper venue for such editors. I can understand you might disagree with me, but I think another admin's comment would be helpful, as would be a comment on whether this type of report belongs elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC) As I mentioned above, all we can do here is speculate, which is not helpful. I do think this is the right place and other comments are welcome. -- John Reaves 04:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks. I am not looking to speculate--or to be exact, have my speculation be taken as verbum dei, just make sure I have reported the matter to the right venue. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Comment: Honestly, 30 days block is quiet old for claiming that user is suspicious. It usually take less than 5 days for committing intentional breach of wiki policies. User may have weaker idea about WP:Notability, but that is certainly no edit warring. Noteswork (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) I don't recall anyone mentioning edit warring. But more seriously...nothing is being done about this? According to WP:SUICIDE, all such threats should be taken seriously. How about closing this, revdeleting the userpage, and tracking down the IP? Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 08:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Won't help really, even if he had a account before, a single ip change clears it all. I agree that suicide threats shouldn't be taken lightly and it is another myth that People who threat suicide, usually lies.. There is surely some better idea. Noteswork (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Template in Category namespace

I've discovered Category:Airbus Helicopters aircraft which has no members other than itself, and the page content has the typical features of a navbox template. If I had found this in e.g. mainspace, I would have moved it to Template:Airbus Helicopters aircraft; unfortunately, being in Category: space, it has no Move tab. What is the procedure to follow here? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You could have used WP:Teahouse instead for asking such questions. Noteswork (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Noteswork, that's not helpful whatsoever. ES&L 12:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's nothing at the top of this page, or in its editnotice, that says so; indeed, the editnotice for WP:AN states "If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead". This is a narrow issue needing either an admin, or somebody with higher rights. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It needs someone with higher rights. We admins don't get a "move" tab for categories either, and since it's not some weird kind of security/higher trust needed, I doubt that bureaucrats or even stewards would have a tab. You'd need to find one of the software administrators, in all likelihood, and they'd move it by changing around information in the database rather than using a "move" tab. I don't think that they'll want to spend a bunch of time on something like this :-) A much simpler solution is the old copy/paste move — I've performed it (see my edit summary for this edit), so the page is now at {{Airbus Helicopters aircraft}}. I then G6 deleted the category, since this is one of those unavoidable technical glitches that G6 is meant to resolve. Finally, try going to Special:MovePage/Category:France, or Special:MovePage/Category:Buildings and structures in Wabash County, Illinois, or Special:Movepage/Category:anything else, and you'll see what happens when you try to move a category. Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, since I am also an admin, I could have performed a G6 but I wasn't sure if a cut/paste move was permitted or if there was some other technique that I didn't know about. Anyway, done now. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry; I didn't remember you were an admin. I thought you meant "I can't move it; can admins?" Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Kermanshahi move warring

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.

---

Kermanshahi has moved the article 2013 Camp Ashraf massacre three times without consensus. He is calling editors terrorist supporters, not the first time, and is also changing my fucking comments at RPP[102][103]. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

And this edit to my talk page shows he is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia. He is pushing a POV. to me the pain and harm MKO terrorist have caused to so many hundreds of thousands of people is worth much much more than a simple wikipedia ban Darkness Shines (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked them, before I saw this. GedUK  13:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Good job Ged UK. Noteswork (talk) 13:50, 29 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.

Single purpose spam account

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

---

User:Jai Ram Tripura is a single-purpose (spam?) account. The account mainly edits Ram Thakur article, and its only aim to prove the subject was a god like figure. He adds dozens of honorific, unsourced claim that the person was "incarnation" "God". See this edit. He has been warned, blocked already. Tito☸Dutta 13:56, 29 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 Citation Needed, refusing discussions and posting threatening message on my talk page.

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

---

Would like to report a self proclaimed editor "Citation Needed". The incident start with me editing page Cryptocurrency, adding worldcoin to the list. FYI, Worlcoin is #8 on Market Capitalization among Mineable Cryptos, and I have offer links from 3rd party to avoid WP:GNG.

User Citation Needed immediately started to delete information, with the reason quoted, "nope" only. I undo his deletion, and asked if he would like to talk about it before we further keep undoing each other. and he posted this in Crytocurrency: (same order as history page.. so need to scroll down a little bit to see where it starts. 14:07, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (25,283 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Notable cryptocurrencies: http://www.coindesk.com/top-altcoins-2013/) (undo)

14:00, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (25,282 bytes) (+1,355)‎ . . (There are LONG articles, that's what I am saying. example: http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/01/24/worldcoin-community-funds-well-system-africa/, Market Cap at #8 also self explanatory will appreciate talk before removing people's work) (undo)

13:56, 29 January 2014‎ Citation Needed (23,927 bytes) (-1,355)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by Kevoras (talk): Are they actual pieces on Worldcoin, or are they fluff mentions that are about a sentence fragment long? (TW)) (undo | thank)

13:54, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras ( (25,282 bytes) (+1,355)‎ . . (repeated interruption and biased opinion by user Citation Needed, despite valid links. MSNBC mention multiple times litecoin/worldcoin, and never ripple, further there are articles in moneyweek/WSJ, suggest googling.) (undo)

13:49, 29 January 2014‎ Citation Needed (23,927 bytes) (-1,355)‎ . . (Undid revision 592958845 by Kevoras (talk) the MSNBC video is about bitcoin and only mentions this cryptocurrency. A couple of mentions isn't enough. Plus, I've made articles about coins too.) (undo | thank)

13:43, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (25,282 bytes) (+1,355)‎ . . (Unfair edit. MSNBC is hardly a crypto blog, deleter user 'citation needed' is using personal juedgement with little knowledge on the matter, advice him stop editting this article.) (undo)

13:40, 29 January 2014‎ Citation Needed (23,927 bytes) (-1,355)‎ . . (Disagree all you want dear. It's not notable, it doesn't belong, and a bunch of crypto blogs won't change that.) (undo | thank) 12:34, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (25,282 bytes) (+277)‎ . . (citing web in correct format) (undo)

12:03, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (25,005 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (adding another valid source for Worldcoin to qualify here. Recent philanthropy work in Africa was unique and well broadcast in China.) (undo)

11:30, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (25,004 bytes) (+98)‎ . . (→‎Notable cryptocurrencies) (undo)

11:27, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (24,906 bytes) (+979)‎ . . (Undid revision 592879229 by Citation Needed (talk) Disagree with deletion, we can talk about it in the talk page if you want, but quoting 'nope' as reason is poor reason. cheers.) (undo)

00:06, 29 January 2014‎ Citation Needed (23,927 bytes) (-979)‎ . . (→‎Notable cryptocurrencies: nope.) (undo | thank)

Then understanding said user might not want to discuss on said page, I posted on his talk page, which he editted it out immediately and made pretty impolite reasons of not talking to talk:

14:54, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (21,159 bytes) (-515)‎ . . (user refuses to discuss) (undo)

14:53, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (21,674 bytes) (+515)‎ . . (I tried talking. good thing all is logged, noted. I will raise a request of vandalism instead then if you dont want to talk and keep interrupting then. willing to talk anytime. until then. KR 15:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)) (undo)

14:11, 29 January 2014‎ Citation Needed (21,159 bytes) (-515)‎ . . (Why should I waste my time on you, again?) (undo | thank)

14:09, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (21,399 bytes) (+240)‎ . . (undo)

It is then I realized he was the same user that suggested multiple deletion of actual noteable Cryptocurrencies in circulation. And right now he is subjecting my newly written Worldcoin article for deletion. I have questions about his intentions, maybe he has a conflict of interest and wish to eliminate competiting Crypto for his own personal gain?

he also wrote on my talk page, which is clearly a threat to me.

I have no idea what you're trying to pull. I would really stop accusing established editors of various things if I were you. Citation Needed | Talk 15:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

you call yourself... ""established editors"" not the way you are refusing to talk about subjects. It is you that I am not sure what you doing. and appears to be vandalism out of spite and pride. I welcome talk and discussion anytime, as for now, how about you stop the immature talks, and begin discussion on crypto? and what is actually noteable and what not? I know you like to pull Non-noteable as that's your ace card, but I have already shown you links from 3rd party and a market cap that cannot be lied. Would you like to come clean on why you refuse to accept top10 Crypto, but accept names like Ripple and Primecoin? I would like to see how much you know in this area. As you obviously don't like me (don't know why), may I suggest we invite a few others to join the chat? this will help the topic to be non-biased, and that is what wikipedia is about, dont you think? KR 15:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I am still asking him to talk to me, but with no luck. I am not sure how to do this, but he's clearly allowing incorrect info on the cryptocurrency page to stay, while removing others. and I feel that is hardly what Wikipedia is about. Talking about Cryptocurrency, and not allowing Marketcap as starting point of validation, kind of makes that whole page pointless. As cryptocurrency is a very new advanced network solution, and of course noteable media mentions will be limited. (still are, and I posted.) However, market Capitalization on mineable cryptos is clearly the way to distinguish how important each Crypto currency is.

Would you be able to suggest what action I should take? I apologize if this is a long letter, but I am kind of new here, and only wish to do things right.

thank you. KR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevoras (talk • contribs) 15:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that's WP:3RR smashed into a million pieces. The problem with most Cryptocurrencies is that it is very hard to find anything that classes as a traditional WP:RS. Citation Needed definitely has been incredibly patronizing here; I can't really criticize the usage of "nope", as I've done that, but "Disagree all you want dear" is absolutely out of line. You shouldn't have re-added the topic on their talkpage after they initially removed it, but that can be attributed to a rookie mistake. As to the notability of this particular currency, I can't determine much, but it could be borderline. The content dispute should be dealt with at WP:DRN, and I suggest you open a thread up there pronto, as you could very easily be blocked for violating 3RR (I count four from Citation Needed, and four from you). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Much Obliged, I will open a page there, so the matter can be settled. I hope my intentions were found ok, as a person trading with bitcoins since 2009, I do feel that Market Cap is probably the 'only reliable' way of measuring noteability. (as Crypto can be famous today, and die tomorrow, Market cap will drop to zero to reflect that. While articles might takes MONTHS to catch up.) Anyway, for now I will leave everything it is, as they are all well validated ... hopefully when the DRN is resolved, we can have a better standard. thanks again. KR 16:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevoras (talk • contribs)

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 SamuelFreli's page

An moving IP is attacking my user page and my talk page since I requested the removal of some pictures violating copyright on Wikimedia Commons.

As the IP is changing : 83.54.141.86, 83.54.141.125 and 83.55.252.121 (on Simple English), is there any way to block him or at least protect my user page and talk for a week or so?

Additionnaly, it as been found on Wikimedia that the IP is associated with PPnocho (talk · contribs) ([104], mostly active on es.wiki). Thank you! --SamuelFreli (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have semi protected your user page for one week. --AdmrBoltz 16:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Still going on talk page. If any admin is still awake . --SamuelFreli (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I blocked the latest IP and have semi-protected the talk page for a week (you're not a very active editor here, so semi-protection is not a big problem). Maybe it'll blow over; let's hope so. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Award by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention of 'Editor of the Week' to User:Gaijin42

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

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention has just awarded Gaijin42 'Editor of the Week' [105] for :" fostering neutrality in articles where most editors' points of view are widely separated. Gaijin often contributes to articles on gun control and related topics. He somehow manages to skillfully draft text acceptable to both pro-gun and anti-gun POVs. Through many contentious discussions on article and user talk pages, he remained neutral and civil, working to keep the focus of discussions on encyclopedic content. He is steward of many articles. Gaijin contributes to articles over a wide range of other topics. He created over 30 articles; his total edits top 10k". Given that Gaijin42 is currently deeply involved in a contentious ArbCom case - with multiple parties calling for sanctions to be taken against him concerning allegations of partisan editing - and has already been blocked both for edit-warring and personal attacks in relation to gun control issues, this nomination can only be seen as pointy, an abuse of the Editor Retention project, and an attempt to interfere in the ArbCom process by means liable to bring Wikipedia as a whole into disrepute. I therefore call for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention to be formally warned that any further examples of such partisan and pointy behaviour is liable to result in sanctions being taken against those involved, and/or the project as a whole, and for the Award to be formally withdrawn. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't see anything but disrupting to make a point here by WER. Given he is involved in an ArbCom case and facing sanctions, at best they tried to make a point, at worst they were intentionally disruptive to the Arbitration proceedings. KonveyorBelt 17:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It's like a barnstar or "WikiLove" messages. Do we really require ANI to intervene in the awards of puffery? Tarc (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

If it was just an individual awarding a barnstar, it wouldn't matter - this is a project purporting to represent the community - and Gaijin42 seems to think it significant enough to mention it in his evidence to ArbCom. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• It took me quite a while to sort through the rather useless project page to figger this out, maybe, but it appears to me to be mostly a useless page/project where Hanlon's Razor applies more than POINT. This seems to be the page before the editor was awarded, and it looks like it's just a matter of which editor reached the top of the list when, based on negligible feedback. I suggest that part of the ER Project might be better shut down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think you're overestimating the Editor of the Week process to assume any sort of conspiracy. The nomination was made by one person and seconded without explanation by another and pretty much automatically put into the queue - there's no voting on EoWs, no discussion in most cases, and no (public?) verification of the claims made in any nomination. It's possible a point was being made here, but it's far more likely to have been on the part of the nominator than on the part of the Wikiproject. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Andy can trout slap a wiki project whenever he wants. If ANI is to do so, can we please have a link to its discussion?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  What discussion are you looking for links to, Anything? The links in my post just above are literally the sum total of all discussion preceding the award that I was able to find. Which is to say, there basically wasn't any discussion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Fluffernutter, your links and Sandy's are what I would have expected in the initial complaint, thanks. Accordingly, I think the members of that wiki project were perfectly entitled to compliment the editor in question.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, as the nomination was made back in November, any accusation of intentional disruption of the ArbCom is a dead end. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Man, who cares? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Maybe time to quote the classic poem

But here is something that's not news:

Editors differ in their views:

The jest that cheers one user's muse

May leave another with a bruise

Can't we all straddle this wide fence

With just a bit of common sense?

One of the few barnstars I have received brought the giver to AE, btw; so give Wikilove on your own risk ;) Iselilja (talk) 18:23, 29 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.

Global reference link changes

As a result of a change of domain name three or four years ago, there are a significant number of reference links that point to content on our old domain that are now therefore dead links.

However, the content referenced is still online under the new domain name and merely requires a correction to the links for them to work and thus provide some renewed usefulness to visitors.

Given that many of the links are contained within the protected reflist, how can we go about getting these links changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caribnewsnow (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

We can look up the links if you provide a list of articles, or we can look up the articles if you tell us what URL you're talking about. Are you referring to www.nycaribnews.com, www.caribnewsdesk.com, www.caribbeannewspapers.com, or some other site? Nyttend (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I checked out the user's contributions, and it appears the new domain they are referring to is "caribbeannewsnow.com" as shown in the other edit they made.--Rockfang (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm dropping a note on their talk page about the username as well before the zealous UAA block drops. Blackmane (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Caribnewsnow: These references are actually in the articles themselves, not transcluded in the reflist. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Unacceptable behaviour by unregistered user

76.181.106.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has not been a productive user and has been warned for various acts of vandalism. As well as content on their own page which appears as an attack against a series of TV series, they have entered into a discussion on the talk page of another IP - 71.74.76.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - using wholly inappropriate language. I warned the IP about proper use of talk pages and drawing attention to some particularly offensive content. My approach has been, let's say, rebuffed. See [106]. This may require action by Admins. Leaky Caldron 18:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this IP caught my attention several months back, but I saw that they became active again today, so I dropped Jpgordon a note to see if he could take a peek. (But now that it's here at AN/I, he's off the hook! Thanks, JPG!) Both IPs above geolocate to Westerville, Ohio, and both IPs are rambling on their respective talk pages, so my guess is that the same editor is using both IPs to ramble to himself. Other editors to consider: Sock operator KuhnstylePro hails from Madison, Ohio, but that's not geographically close to Westerville, and he's not known to talk much. The editor in question here reminds me more of 173.11.226.201 and 50.8.27.98, who similarly have posted rambling, critiques to the cosmos about shows they love or hate. [107][108][109]. These IPs geolocate to Houston, Texas. Alternatively, AllenComedian1999 has a similar rambling style, although he is absolutely incoherent. His IPs are centered around Olive Hill and Morehead, Kentucky. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've enforced a wikibreak for the first IP. --John (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Move over redirect and history merge request

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 who is far more confident than me about these move 168 Hour Film Project to 168 Film Project and merge the histories. The request comes from VRTS ticket # 2014012910013538 the project has changed its name to 168 Film Project. Nthep (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved 168 Hour Film Project to 168 Film Project and merged both histories at that title. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:09, 29 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Kilbourne

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.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Kilbourne

Someone has posted very immature and offensive context to Jean Kilbourne's page. Please fix it as I do not know how. Thank you. Emy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.149.74 (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed, thanks. In the future, please report these to WP:AIV. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:09, 30 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.

ShawntheGod is being disruptive , racist, and exclusive of objective verifiable scientific evidence

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.

---

re:article Moors There is no " vandalism "within my comments. The editors on this page are clearly white supremicist who have no intention of allowing the TRUTH about who the Moors really were be known to people who live in the United States. Everyone here in Europe knows that the original Moors were of the Black race and currently the article does not paint this picture at all. All pictures in addition to the text specifically excludes any reference to the Black Race. Please see below the same exact reference that other editors have cited however its a different portion of the book so why would you allows the inclusion of this resource for their information and not for mine. It is clear that racism is at work with your suggested edits. http://shazereverquar.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/4-golden-age-of-the-moor.pdf

Pages 3 and 4 clearly outline this racial "myth" which is highly controversial amongst the Black North Africans like myself. If Wikipedia is supposed to an objective encycolpeida then it need to inform people of both perspectives , the scientific one versus the scientific racism version. This is also been proven true by the way that the Hamitic people are reflected in Wikipedia. Refer to that article as it clearly uses the words " scientific racism" and states that this is not proven theory. This is the type of language I am trying to insert in this article.

This is a systematic form of racism and I don't intend on allowing you to continue to exclude my race's history and don't maintain adequate objective information in this forum for others to see. This is just as racists as the article posted on the Hamitic race which most North Africans and numerous people around the world know is scientific racism.

If you block the truth from being reflected within this article then I intend to solicit others within my community to ensure that this injustice is taken to the next level. You have no respect for the research of Anthropologist and historians to which I have simply cited their information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth777333 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• What action do you want administrators to take? (also see Zen rule 11) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Truth777333: Please don't add spaces to the beginning of paragraphs, it screws up the formatting. I've converted your spaces to identation. Anyway after 70.126.13.113 who appears to now be ShawnTheGod resorted to trying to get meatpuppetry when their apparent refusal to listen or seek third party help didn't go down so well, I didn't think anything could get worse. But now it seems we have you who isn't just making legal threats, but is calling people white supremacists? But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, I get the feeling you're probably not serious and may have been drawn in by the meatpuppetry attempt. Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• The "quick" response is that the use of anything from Wordpress is not acceptable, as it's not a reliable source. I don't believe anyone is attempting to insult, or enhance any "myth" - there's merely an unbreakable requirement for proper sourcing of any claims, period ES&L 11:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's quite clear this man has a POV and I'm not the only one who sees it -- my recent thread about him above shows other editors who agree. He continued to make the same tendentious disruptive edit after several reverts by me and other editors. He did not attempt to build consensus after a revert or reverts, unless consensus building would be calling others 'racist', threatening with the possible use of a lawsuit, and attempting to incorporate the same material into the article again and again. His material is clearly OR as his source comes from a self-published Afrocentrist writer known for distortion of history and has been chastised for his pseudohistorical views. It's also a possible copyright violation and the source has been deemed not only unreliable by me, but by another editor when being checked under the reliable sources noticeboard. So he has resorted to name calling, POV, possible copyright violation, OR, and disruptive editing. I also never called his material "vandalism", not sure who he is quoting there. ShawntheGod (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Either way I guess the link is a copyright violation of Ivan Van Sertima's The Golden Age of the Moor (Journal of African Civilizations), so whatever the status of the source posting the link here probably isn't okay. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The article Moors has long been a battleground space between Afrocentrists who insist that "moors" = "black people" and some Arab/Muslim editors who insist that "Moors" = white north Africans. There are of course editors who try to be even-handed, but there are regular accusations of racism from both sides, and in some cases these are justified. There are editors who want to insist that "moors" were never "black", and who remove all references to the use of the term in that sense. Likewise, there are editors who insist, equally absurdly, that they all were black Africans and insist on putting in pictures of heraldic "moors". Paul B (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

User:ShawntheGod aka 70.126.13.113 is accusing someone _else_ of pushing a POV, name calling, and disruptive editing? Miracles never cease. (Not that User:Truth777333 is much better, but at least they haven't gone chasing meatpuppets yet.)

I despair of Moors, I really do. I've no idea what proportion of Moors were black, although presumably since they held quite a large chunk of Africa for quite a long time it was non-trivial; the sources for the article aren't all they could be, but it's not like I have an extensive library on the subject; and too much effort goes on just keeping a lid on the difficulty Paul B mentions. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There is such a thing as White North Africans? I've never heard anybody refer to North Africans as white before, sorry that was shocking. ShawntheGod (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You've never heard it? You need to get out more [110]. If "white" and "black" are perceived to be the only available colour-terms, then it's very common to find Berbers etc referred to as white. Paul B (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• The original Constitution of Haiti (the first democracy in the Western Hemisphere) gave all blacks voting and property rights under law. it then defined all Haitians, regardless of actual "colour" as black. Yeah, someone needs to get out more ES&L 13:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well Arabs do get considered "white" in some countries by censuses, here in the United States they do, but Arabs do not consider themselves white socially (at least based on the Arabs I met) and there was even a movement here in the United States for Arabs to not get considered white by themselves. So not on my perception on race are Arabs or Berbers white, nor by the average persons standards and by a lot of Arabs standards, and certainly not by white racist standards. Some people even have a hard time grasping the notion that all Europeans are white. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

TIL -- that all Haitians are black, well they were, most still are. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Never been there, have ya ES&L 13:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Nah, but 95% of them are black according to the CIA, so most still are. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Just the mere fact that the term "Afrocentrist" is being used as a way of discrediting the reliability of the source is in of itself racially motivated. Why is it that a scholar who happens to be Black not a "reliable source" Are you insinuating that only non -black scholars can be used as sources? In addition, the source that I provided was from author Ivan Van Sertima]]'s The Golden Age of the Moor. who is not a bLack author by the way.

All I am advocating for is the inclusion of more information regarding the ethnicity of the Moors which by many scholars who are not black since apparently wikipedia doesn't allow non black sources have accredited to being Black. The current article does not allow for this to be reflected in the current language In addition absolutely none of the pictures depict any of the Black faces of the original Moors prior to the mixing of the aces. This is not an accurate depiction of history. You are doing a disservice to the ethnic people of this world who will by way of looking at this article only attribute whites or lighter skinned races to the Moors people. This is exactly why wikipedia has such a bad reputation amongst people of color. Look up what the opinion of wikipedia is from the perspective of Hispanics, Blacks, Native americans and Indians. Most agree that articles such as these don't reflect the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth777333 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't inset using the space-bar. It makes your comments unreadable. There are many many scholars who are black and who are reliable, including many who criticise Afrocentrism. There are many white self-styled "scholars" who are unreliable. Sertima is not disregarded because he is black, but because his work is not well-respected by historians. Paul B (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

See also Definitions of whiteness in the United States "der the U.S. Census definition and U.S. federal agency, individuals with ancestry from North Africa are considered white. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations also explicitly define white as "original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East."" Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The term "Afrocentrist" was used due to the fact that Ivan Van Sertima has been chastised for Afrocentric pseudohistorical extremist views. I did not remove your source because Ivan was black, but because he is not reliable. I'm pretty sure there was a copyright violation with your source too. Also when you say "ethnic people", you are referring to non-whites? I like how you assume I'm white because I reverted your edits, not much correlation there. You seem a bit unfamiliar with how WP works and this is completely fine. WP:OR WP:POV WP:RS, you should take a look at these pages and more to get familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Yes User:Dougweller I am aware they are considered "white" by the census, but socially speaking they are generally not seen as white and there has been controversy over that classification. They especially are not seen as white by [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t579650/ white supremacist standards of whiteness] whom the Truth777333 called me and other editors who reverted him were. ShawntheGod (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know but perhaps researching the use of blackamoor will help some of you think through this, regarding "Eurocentic" views; some sources are listed here. [111] Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what the point is of me continuing to respond to this topic. He called me "disruptive" and "racist" for reverting his edits for valid reasons and other editors who reverted him white supremacists too. The "scientific evidence" comes from a source not reliable, that's why it was objected. Not really sure what else there is to say. ShawntheGod (talk) 14:53, 30 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.

Continuous WP:NPA (Casting Aspersions) Violations

Dear Administrators,
I find myself here practically forced to report a user that (despite various warnings) refuses to stop casting serious aspersions towards me.
The user in question, User:Astynax has been continuously casting aspersions of academic dishonesty, specifically accusations of "intransigent pushing PoV and fringe content", against my editing account.

• Please see: [112][113][114].

Astynax defends his behavior by claiming that, based on the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBARG, the arguments brought up in the "evidence phase" of the case are valid to be attributed to the Arbitration Committee's voice & final decision.
Nonetheless, this perspective has been disputed both by arbitrator Salvio (see [115]) & administrator ES&L (see [116][117][118]). In fact, both ended up recommending that I take any further aspersion casting to AN/I:

• Salvio ([119]): "Our findings of fact are contained in the final decision and that's the only thing that it can be said to have been officially stated by arbcom. And if you think another person has been hurling groundless accusations at you, the best approach would be to talk to the other party and, failing that, to start an ANI thread."
• ES&L ([120]): "Marshal was advised to take others' behaviour to ANI, and that's that. Period. That said, Asyntax has spent every single one of his posts here proving Marshal to be right. Asyntax' comments are 110 degrees off of what the findings of fact were, and is ascribing very different words and meanings to ArbCom's findings. This clearly violates WP:NPA (see WP:WIAPA), and refuses to remove them even when appropriately notified of their error."

Moreover, not only have I tried to resolve this issue with Astynax, requesting him quite clearly to stop his aggressions ([121][122]), but ES&L also tried to reason with him ([123][124]). Yet, Astynax declined to stop his abusive comments & literally told ES&L to stop posting on his talk page ([125]): "Please do not post on my talk page again regarding this subject or with similar baseless charges and/or patronizing insults as to my maturity." Basically, Astynax refuses to drop the stick.
Due to this situation, I am reporting User:Astynax at AN/I for WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND breaches.
Since the accusations made by Astynax are defamations, and he outright refuses to listen and get the point ([126][127]), I believe an indefinite block is in order until the user agrees to stop casting aspersions (per the same principle mentioned by the Arbitration Committee) towards me and other editors involved in the arbitration case.
However, please consider my recommendation as nothing more than a suggestion.
Thanks in advance! Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a very bad situation. I agree with the assertion that MarshalN20 was never sanctioned for POV-pushing or fringe editing; in fact, it's telling that ArbCom explicitly stated that Cambalachero was being sanctioned for POV-pushing but MarshalN20. Based on how long this same cast of characters and topic area have been popping up in various venues, I don't know that we're ever going to have peaceful editing for these editors until there are complete, all-around interaction bans. --Laser brain (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Reply by Astynax: MarshalN20 lodged a request for clarification and amendment of his topic ban at WP:ARCA[128] on the basis of his accusation that a Signpost article had misrepresented his role in an ARBCOM case in which he was topic-banned (he has since redacted his request and dropped asking for amendment of his sanction). As the Signpost piece in question seems to accurately present the case, I commented on the request for clarification and amendment, especially as the editor who authored the piece has a "retired" banner on his/her user page (the author has since commented at ARCA). I believe my comments in defense of the piece are accurate. MarshalN20 was indefinitely topic-banned from all articles, discussions and other content dealing with the history of Latin America explicitly for tendentious editing, which specifically encompasses PoV-pushing behavior, and for battleground behavior.[129] Per the definition of tendentious editing used in the ARBCOM Final decision, "Tendentious editing: 8) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site." Further, the Final decision states, "Locus of dispute: 1) This dispute primarily involves allegations of POV-pushing and other poor user conduct by certain editors editing Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles. The disputes among those editors extends to many articles related to the history of Latin America." (note that the case was raised only regarding the behavior of 2 editors: MarshalN20 and Cambalachero, as a result of which, both of whom were topic-banned from any involvement in articles, discussions or other content touching on Latin American history). Thus, it seems to my aged eyes that the Signpost article was on rock-solid ground. Topic bans are not issued for a mere 3 breaches, and I'm confident that ARBCOM took into consideration MarshalN20's behavior beyond the 3 diffs he prefers to cite in disputing the conclusion that he had engaged in tendentious editing and/or battleground behavior. Nor is there the slightest basis for his accusation that I (and others MarshalN20 has similarly accused) have been traipsing around Wikipedia spreading a "Black legend"[130][131][132] Nor am I aware of why I have been singled out here and accused of spreading the purported "Black Legend". • Astynax ^talk 22:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@User:Astynax You "believe" your comments are accurate, but you have been quite clearly made aware that they are inaccurate, and are contrary to WP:NPA. What you believe is irrelevant - you might believe the Easter Bunny is blue; so what. The proof was clearly laid out for you, but you insist on putting your own spin, and making bizarre allusions to policy - instead of actually reading exactly what ArbCom found as a finding of fact. You cannot add words, change words, or ascribe different meanings. You are continuing to make unsubstantiated personal attacks against Marshal, and you continue to repeat them ad nauseum. So, the real result here is one of two things (or a combination thereof): a one-way interaction ban and/or an indefinite block until you convince the community that you're prepared to stop attacking someone (or anyone, for that fact) willy-nilly across the project - and any unblock would require you to formally withdraw and strike all of your false accusations/personal attacks from across the entire project ES&L 12:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That is simply wrong. As I quoted above, the Arbcom final decision did explicitly define "tendentious editing" as "engaging in sustained point-of-view editing". MarshalN20 was topic-banned for "tendentious editing" under that definition. Nothing has been distorted, either in the Signpost article, which I did not participate in writing, or in my comments on the accusations MarshalN20 leveled regarding the article's content and motivations at ARCA in yet another request to amend his sanctions. Your "proof" has consisted entirely of your own say-so, based upon a strangely selective reading of the Arbcom Final decision. Your repetition of MarshalN20's false charge that I have been attacking him "willy-nilly across the project" is made without a shred of substantiation. Other than my comment on the ARCA page, this is the only place I have commented on this issue—an issue instigated by MarshalN20 both there and here, and not by me. I find your belligerent tone, both here, on my talk and at ARCA to be highly inappropriate and unconstructive. • Astynax ^talk 18:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Some responses:

1. I did not ask for an amendment to my sanction. I asked for an amendment for editors, such as Astynax, to stop throwing unjustified insults at me (i.e., drop the stick on a case that was resolved many months ago).
2. The three diffs I present are the same that Arbcom used to provide examples of the behavior I exhibited that they found problematic. None of those diffs justify Astynax's accusations.
3. The tendentious editing defined in this case has nothing to do with Astynax's repetitive accusations of "intransigent pushing PoV and fringe content". In fact, Arbcom was concerned by my behavior in article talk spaces (to the point there is a principle on how talk pages should be properly used), and that is exactly what is shown in Arbcom's diffs. On the other hand, Astynax's accusations equate the matter with academic dishonesty, which is a serious WP:NPA breach.
4. Lastly, and this is where Wee Curry Monster's WP:MEAT statement should be taken into consideration, a prior WP:IBAN instituted among the parties (due to mutual "acrimonious" behavior) is directly related to the same accusations Astynax is now raising towards me. I would like to provide diffs that show how Astynax's accusations relate to the accusations that partially led to the IBAN, but that would breach my IBAN with the other party (maybe reading the prior IBAN situation might help: [133]).

Ultimately, the point here is that this matter concerns a resolved arbitration case to which Astynax was not an involved party (at least by the case's official page). There is no justification for him or others to continue casting aspersions on the parties, all of which received sanctions (some stronger than others) for their inappropriate behavior. Continuous aspersion casting, at this time, is nothing more than WP:GRUDGE and WP:BATTLEGROUND attitudes that should not be tolerated by anyone's standards (especially when considering WP:COMPETENCE and WP:REAL).

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Astynax, seriously? You could have simply taken this time to apologize and move on, but instead decide to continue what various editors have identified as unnecessarily harsh insults.

You really don't even have to apologize. Simply drop the stick.

But, at this point the matter has gone well-beyond the point of return for you (or so it seems by your attitude).

Given this situation, I agree with Laser_brain & Wee Curry Monster that an interaction ban between Astynax and myself is an appropriate solution. Due to the continuous WP:NPA breaches, I would also recommend a block to not only stop the personal attacks but also set precedent on others who want to continue casting aspersions on this case.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I would rather not have to block anyone. The ideal outcome is that you and Astynax can edit in peace. However, I'm curious as to whether Astynax would voluntarily agree to an interaction ban so we can put this to bed. --Laser brain (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Laser_brain. Two-way or one-way interaction bans would be fine by me. I have no need to talk about or with Astynax on anything. He is not even a party to the arbitration case, which makes his continuous involvement all the more problematic.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Laser brain: Until MarshalN20 leveled his accusations against Neotarf and the Signpost article at ARCA last Saturday, I cannot recall any interaction with MarshalN20 since his topic ban, so an interaction ban would be irrelevant unless MarshalN20 again raises similar baseless accusations. In such a case, I feel an interaction ban would unjustly prevent me from commenting or discussing with others. I have not distorted anything. I have not been incivil in commenting on and reiterating the Arbcom case and ruling at ARCA, and now here. I have not spun conspiracy theories about cabals bent on persecuting me or spreading "Black Legends". Showing at ARCA the basis for the statements in the Signpost article, which MarshalN20 considers a personal attack, does not rise to the level of NPA. MarshalN20 raised the issues and was the person who bumped up the arbcom case yet again, not me, and I am here simply because I commented on and disputed his allegations. I am completely innocent of the slanderous and unsubstantiated accusations by MarshalN20 and ES&L that I've been going around Wikipedia spreading false charges about MarshalN20. There is no factual basis in my behavior for MarshalN20's initial complaint and demand that I be banned, nor in the stuff he continues to pile on (I expect the kitchen sink to be thrown in next). I imagine this is stuff leftover from prior to his topic ban, as he has not pointed to a single incident other than my comments at ARCA, which themselves were responses to allegations he raised. A ban, even my agreeing to accept such, would be a blot on my otherwise fairly clean record. • Astynax ^talk 19:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Astynax, all you're being asked is to stop your accusations and remove them from the places you made them. The request is not unreasonable, particularly when considering your claim that you have slandered me in only a few places. In fact, professional as they would be, apologies are not even required to resolve this matter. However, by outright refusing to do these simple things and instead deciding to continue casting aspersions, you are effectively piling stuff onto yourself.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Astynax seems to have dropped the stick, which is good, but has persistently refused to recant his accusations.

This leads me to think that the problem is going to continue in the long-run, unless an interaction ban is placed between Astynax and both Cambalachero and myself.

I think it's for the benefit of everyone that this matter is resolved now rather than later.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Fairly blatant meat puppetry here

Sadly as someone who has been on the periphery of this long term, I have to note there has been a long term history of meat puppetry associated with WP:BraC. I first became aware of this some time ago, when somewhat perplexed asked why the WP article on the War of the Triple Alliance (common English name) was named Paraguayan War (common name in Brazil). There I found User:Lecen recruited a number of editors from that project to vote in his favour of retaining the move he'd engendered to the fringe name. Enraged by my more than polite questions Lecen was eventually blocked for his combative behaviour and has nurtured a grudge ever since.

I have to note that User:Asyntax is often a proxy for User:Lecen (eg Talk:Paraguayan War/Archive 1#Requested move 2012) and appears to be continuing the dispute between Lecen and MarshalN20 by proxy. There is already an arbcom sanctioned interaction between Lecen and Marshal, I would recommend it is extended. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And your basis for that accusation is what? You are hardly a neutral observer and have raised the Paraguayan War name change issue repeatedly since you and MarshalN20 failed to gain and rejected consensus. I am certain that uninvolved admins can and will investigate your puppetry charge, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with MarshalN20's incident report above. • Astynax ^talk 23:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Formal proposal

I stated it above, but seeing Astynax' response, I'm appalled - it's clear that in order to protect this project - and its editors (even in heated areas), that something needs to be done. They are clearly attempting to discredit MarshalN20, and to drive him off certain sets of articles on Wikipedia as per WP:HARASS.

• Option 1: Astynax is subject to a 1-way WP:IB with MarshalN20
• Option 2: Astynax is indefinitely blocked until they supply a WP:GAB compliant unblock request, which must include a promise to immediately cease making further comments that cast aspersion on MarshalN20, and that they will immediately retract and strike all previous instances
• Option 3: Both Option 1 and option 2 combined
• Option 4: No action against Astynax

Discussion

• Unfortunate support of option 3 added: as first choice, option 1 as second choice ES&L 21:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• A standard two-way IB between Astynax and Marshal is a much more robust solution here. The one-way IB hardly ever works out well, except in the case of harassment-only SPAs, which Astynax doesn't seem to be. If my memory of this is isn't wrong, Marshal was initially given a one-way IB with Lecen, which was then made two-way because the one-way IB didn't work out well. Let's not prolong the drama by new one-way IBs in this area... Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I feel a two-way IB may be later misinterpreted as reflecting mutual antagonism. I don't think this is the case here. The mentioned two-way IB was implemented on August 2013. The original case did not have any interaction bans. Arbitrator T. Canens wrote, "When I drafted the PD in this case, I considered including interaction bans; I decided against that because I thought the topic bans may well be sufficient to separate the parties and prevent the acrimonious interactions. Unfortunately, the continued acrimonious interactions despite the topic ban means that interaction bans are necessary" ([134]). This IBAN was later breached, not by me, and with accusations that mirror Astynax's current claims (please see [135]).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• Perhaps a one-way IB is more indicative of the issue and perhaps a better solution (see my reasons in my response to Someone not using his real name). It's important to point out that Astynax writes, "I cannot recall any interaction with MarshalN20 since his topic ban" ([136]). Indeed, I have not interacted with Astynax since the arbitration case closed. This makes Astynax's sudden re-appearance and unwarranted accusations (which are eerily similar, if not exact, to the "acrimonious" accusations that partially led to the IBAN of August 2013; please see [137]) all the more indicative of a WP:MEAT situation. Taking this all into consideration, it seems to me that Option 3 is indeed the best solution.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I'm the other user that Astynax talks about in his messages, I have the same topic ban that MarshalN20 has. I usually prefer to deny recognition when someone says bad things about me, to avoid increasing drama. Still, I don't like to be periodically mentioned from out of the blue as if I was the root of all evil, or something like that. It's specially strange coming from Astynax, as I have not interacted with him since... well, I don't remember if I ever interacted with him personally at all (I only remember his name from discussions involving several users). Yes, I'm topic banned, but Wikipedia:Banning policy#Conduct towards banned editors clarifies in bold font that "It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them. Personal attacks, outing and other behaviours remain unacceptable even if directed towards a banned editor." I have moved on since the topic ban, I chose other topics of articles to continue editing, I did not interact with the editors that supported the ban any more than strictly necessary, and I'm not going around wikipedia claiming to be a victim or a martyr. I expect people like Astynax to do the same and move on as well, but if he can't do that on his own, then an interaction ban should be needed. If I do not react when he accuses me of wrongdoings, that doesn't mean that I don't care Cambalachero (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This conversation started out at the arbitration committee requests for clarification, but was withdrawn and brought here. Originally Marshal claimed he was being accused of "being a fascist" in the Signpost's arbitration report, but the reference to Fascism refered to the use of sources sympathetic to 'Nacionalismos', who were associated with the Revisionismo movement of the 1930s. I have not examined these sources myself, but the claims seem well-referenced. If Marshal means to defend the use of these sources, it would seem he needs to find reliable sources that say otherwise.

There are already interaction bans in effect for this case, but it seems they are not working, as more uninvolved users are getting dragged into the dispute. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The enforcement (or not) of the interaction bans is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. There is no interaction ban between MarshalN20 and Astinax, the proposal here is precisely if it's needed to establish one, if doing something else, or if not doing anything. Cambalachero (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at the ArbCom page, adding Neotarf to the mutual IBAN with Cambalachero and MarshalN20, should settle the matter for the foreseeable future. Since the latter two are topic banned, perennially bringing them into discussion is WP:DEADHORSE unless it's on some ArbCom page. I'm not sure why ArbCom has punted (or allowed this to be punted to) ANI. Probably typical bureaucratic delay or they couldn't decide what to do. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • A sensible solution would be to perhaps topic ban Neotarf from the "Argentine history" Arbcom case, and to institute a 1-way or mutual IBAN between MarshalN20 (myself) and Astynax. An IBAN between Astynax and Cambalachero would also be a logical solution to prevent further problems.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Option 1, for now. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 04:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Alansohn and civility

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.

---

Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been sanctioned before his lack of civility, and seems to be at it again. This edit in a CFD discussion is a direct personal attack on the nominator. That sort of thing has a chilling effect on discussion.

It is quite right and proper that editors can disagree in a discussion, and that they should weigh things differently. But to open a discussion with an assertion that "the continuing staggering display of ignorance is breathtaking" ignores the possiblity that the other editor is aware of those facts, but disputes their importance and/or relevance to the matter in hand. It creates a hostile environment, which deters other editors from participating, and impedes consensus formation.

See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn (2008), Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed decision#Alansohn_restricted (2008), and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions.

Alansohn's block log for incivility and personal attacks. In the last year, his civility has improved, but his recent contributions show him returning to an old habits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding incivility or a personal attack in the first link ES&L 09:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Breathtaking, in fact! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, really staggering. Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I can't think of any situation where people were meeting around a table and it would be considered appropriate to say "the continuing staggering display of ignorance is breathtaking". Not unless the meeting was descending into a fight.

But if it is considered acceptable here, then that's how it is. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

BHG, seriously, haven't you got anything better to do?? How is that uncivil? It's simply an expression of annoyance at the (perceived) ignorance of another editor, very common on wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"ignorance" = "a lack of knowing about a topic". How is saying "the continuing staggering display of lack of knowledge on this topic is breathtaking" a bad thing? I'm absolutely ignorant about how the inside of a computer CPU works, or why people think hairless cats make attractive pets. Go ahead - call me ignorant about those things ES&L 18:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The "chilling effect" here is an admin robustly objecting to mild robustness in debate, and apparently seeking a block, citing a block log that has been clean for over five years as evidence of chronic incivility. Can this system be called just if editors are harassed in this manner over blocks made over five years ago? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Alansohn can be a pain in the tuckus, and uses some salty language on occasion, but that goes for most many old timers here. Sorry BHG, I don't see much here that is blockable, though I wish that Alansohn would tone it down some. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear in my comment at the CfD in question, but my remark was directed at what I perceived to be an overall tone of Holocaust trivialization, not just in the nomination, but most specifically User:Obiwankenobi's remark "Being a holocaust survivor certainly is defining and often a source of fame/notability", which Obiwankenobi himself apparently realized was in exceedingly poor taste and struck out (see this edit). Having met and spoken at length with several hundred Holocaust survivors and their children, I found the tenor of these remarks from what I see as those who make light of The Holocaust to be viscerally offensive. I can assure you that the original comments I had planned to write while I was still nauseated by the remarks were far, far stronger and only ended up as they did after several revisions. I will certainly endeavor to be as polite as possible in dealing with such situations in the future. I hope that some of those who believe that they have any understanding of the impact of The Holocaust on the children of survivors would read Art Spiegelman's Maus series (among the hundreds of other such books) or maybe just read the relevant articles on Wikipedia before passing judgment with what comes off as condescending off-handedness. Alansohn (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a thicker hide than some, and I wish he would tone it down and not go on so, but I don't see the linked passage as bad enough for some sort of sanction. That said, this response is verging on crossing a line. I do not trivialize the holocaust; it stands as one of the greatest enormities of modern times. But we are now heading into a kind of special pleading in which every other enormity and all the pains of others are being trivialized in comparison. Alansohn needs to respect that others do stand at some distance from this horror and cannot be expected to express the same visceral reaction, and that our perspective on this is not diminished because we do not. Mangoe (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I assure you I never meant to make light of the holocaust nor trivialize it. FWIW, I did not strike it because it was "in exceedingly poor taste", I struck it because I didn't realize one interpretation could be that people were "cashing-in" on their status as survivors, which was not my intent, but Shawn pointed this out and I struck it accordingly; by "fame" I simply meant "the condition of being known or recognized by many people" - and not "fame" as in celebrity. I think you're taking things too far here. I have read the Maus series, I have a copy on my shelf, and have also visited death camps in Poland and Lithuania, and I assure you, that's not something I will ever forget. Again, you (and others) seem to be arguing that by !voting for deletion of this category, we are somehow saying that being the child of holocaust survivors is trivial or uninteresting or unimpactful - but that's not what we're saying at all, if you'd read the arguments presented. There is a difference between "of massive impact on your life" and "defining", and it does not trivialize the holocaust to claim something may be A but not B.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• I too don't find Alansohn's remark sanctionable, not by a long shot. He is far ruder in the thread further down, where his accusations of antisemitism towards AndyTheGrump are completely beyond the pale. Now those do deserve a sanction. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC).

• I agree. The Internet Tough Guy meter was about 5 in this thread, but he dialed it up to about 9 down there. --Laser brain (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree a bit. Andy's choice of words gave me the initial impression of anti semitism on his part. Alan should have asked for clarification before grabbing a rope. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Alansohn should get a medal for his patience and continued participation in the caustic environment at wp:CfD. The chilling effect on discussion there blows from a different direction. Just my $.02. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC) (who tried to participate but gave up)

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.

AndyTheGrump, unacceptable speech

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 posting this here because beyond a certain degree abrasiveness becomes unacceptable. An edit summary for a post on our WP:BLP/N reads: "I've had enough of this Jew-tagging troll"[138]. The post refers to "clueless Jew-tagging troll"[139]. The same post also reads: "Wikipedia isn't a platform for Jew-tagging trolls"[140]. This is unacceptable. We have policy that covers this: WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA. I don't think the User is unaware of such policies. This level of speech does not promote the functioning of this project, which is highly editorially-interactive. I am quoting abrasive speech. I think it is obvious that such speech hampers editorial interaction. In a later post in the same thread the User posts: "I'm not interested in 'collaborating' with someone who engages in an ideological battle with the objective of persuading Wikipedia to publish lies."[141] If he/she is not interested in "collaborating", does that somehow justify the use of abrasive speech? Bus stop (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Useless complaint. AtG is an inveterate example of general incivility who merits weekly trouts, and Bus Stop has an endless record of supporting the categorization of people by purported (ethnicity/race/nationality/religion) and of having lengthy discussions on talk pages and drama boards thereon. After a week or three of chronophagous discussion here, the above will remain true. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC) (restoring accidentally deleted post)

What about the unacceptable tagging of people as belonging to a faith when they state that they don't practice the faith? Sounds like ... trolling ... an attempt to generate nastiness and battlegrounds. Not excusing anyone actually calling a spade a spade, but hey ... ES&L 15:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Trout (edit conflict) Andy for calling another editor a troll and daring them to take it to AN/I, and Bus stop for making an AN/I almost a week later without trying to resolve the situation first. the rest would be a content dispute. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Bus Stop's history and block log, it appears that he has been edit warring and engaging in tendentious editing over tagging individuals as Jews since at least 2007. While AndyTheGrump should strive to be a bit more diplomatic, if the shoe fits.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The User should be told sternly in the voice of the Community that the terminology "Jew-tagging" is unacceptable speech at Wikipedia. The unacceptability of the term goes beyond other issues such as whether or not I as an editor should be presenting arguments in support of or in opposition to the identifying of individuals in our encyclopedia as "Jewish". These are separate issues. In fact any dispute over the "Jewishness" of a given individual cannot receive a proper discussion in the presence of abrasive terminology. "Jew-tagging" is an example of abrasive terminology. Bus stop (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Should I have used that phrase? Probably not. However, I'd recommend reading the long and tedious thread, where Bus Stop has spammed a discussion regarding the appropriateness of placing 'religion: Jewish' into the infobox in our article on Jordan Belfort. I say 'spammed', because his entire argument is, as is almost almost always the case when Bus Stop gets involved in such discussions, that WP:BLPCAT (and indeed Wikipedia policy on sourcing in general) doesn't apply when describing Jewish people, and that the complete lack of any evidence that Belfort is of the Judaic faith is no reason for us not to tell our readers that Belfort is Jewish by religion. In the process, he cites a website, "Judaism 101" for material (not on what Belfort actually believes, or about Belfort at all, needless to say), despite having had it pointed out several times in the past that it is a personal website written by someone who states that ""I do not claim to be a rabbi or an expert on Judaism" [142], and quite clearly not a reliable source for anything beyond the opinions of the non-expert. He then goes on to cherry-pick an article in the Economist which discusses the complex issue of Jewish identity (without discussing Belfort, naturally) for a statement about Jewish identity - utterly ignoring the fact that the article makes clear that this is a contentious issue, with no agreement amongst differing Jewish communities and traditions. And ignoring entirely, until I pointed it out, that said Economist article states that "22% of American Jews described themselves as having no religion" [143] - adressing the very point at issue, that it is entirely possible to self-identify as Jewish (as Belfort clearly does) without being 'Jewish by religion'. And on it goes. With Bus Stop arguing inter alia that 'Judaism is not a religion that is heavily based on "beliefs"' - yes he really wrote that [144] (citing no source, naturally) after explaining in long and tedious detail why the beliefs of Judaism in general (or rather the beliefs of his cherry-picked sources) are more relevant to what goes into an infobox on Belfort's religion than Belfort's own opinion on the matter. And so it goes on. Interminably. With Bus Stop at one point objecting to the phrase 'Jewish by religion', despite previously citing an (off-topic) CNN website which used the phrase "Religion: Jewish" regarding Henry Kissinger, and despite the fact that Bus Stop was arguing that we should say exactly the same thing in the infobox for Belfort. (Personally, I'd have said that, where it was properly sourced, and relevant - as WP:BLPCAT requires - 'Religion: Judaism' would be more appropriate, but since it wasn't, I didn't). Bus Stop insisted (for no reason whatsoever, as far as I could tell, beyond facile Wikilawyering) that the phrase "Jewish by religion" was "gibberish", and that I was engaging in "original research" when I used it. He demanded that I provided a source that used the phrase (though of course he'd already cited the Economist which had) - which needless to say I located via Google in no time at all - from the Times of Israel website. And so it goes on. And on. And on. Bus Stop has a long history of engaging in such facile and interminable Wikilawyering over how we describe people with a Jewish background, almost all based on arguments to the effect that because Jewish tradition has particular definitions of who is Jewish, such traditions are 'reliable sources' that trump the person's own self-identification. Not only is this a complete and utter inversion of WP:BLPCAT (which is of course part of WP:BLP policy), but it is also intensely disrespectful, leading another contributor to write "I am Jewish. I have no religion. If anyone argued and edit-warred to include Jewish as my religion in an infobox, I would hit the roof. It is no one else's role to determine this for me, and the fact that their definition would include me is of no more relevance than is the fact that Mormons, I understand, retroactively convert the ancestors of converts to their religion. Would any editor insist that, because the Mormon church considered the deceased parent of a convert to be a Mormao, then this category should be included, as their religion, in an infobox?" [145] And not only does it violate core WP:BLP policy, and not only is it disrespectful, but it fails to take into account the well-documented and more or less self-evident fact that Jewish identity is a complex and contested issue, and that accordingly Wikipedia shouldn't be making 'rulings' as to who is Jewish and how: though of course there are many other good reasons not to do that anyway. In summary then Bus Stop was arguing that regardless of what Wikipedia policy says, and regardless of Belfort's own opinion on the matter, Wikipedia should assert that he is Jewish by religion. Or, in plain words, that Wikipedia should lie to its readers in order to satisfy Bus Stop's obsessions. It is my considered opinion that his tendentious Wikilawyering advocacy of systematic policy violations needs to be stopped, and that an indefinite topic ban on anything relating to Jewish identities and living persons is the appropriate remedy. He has been engaging in such behaviour for many years - and as far back as 2007 was community banned over his apparent insistence (despite copious evidence to the contrary) that Bob Dylan had never converted to Christianity. [146]. There are multiple further instances of such tendentious behaviour scattered over multiple Wikipedia talk pages - Ed Miliband [147] and Adam Levine spring to mind as prominent examples - and he clearly isn't going to stop until he is obliged to. Enough is enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy, you question whether you should have used the phrase, and you admit that you probably shouldn't. That's great. The problem is, Bus stop had previously raised this issue with you before in 2011,[148] and you've been using the term "Jew-tagging" since that time.[149] So, you were already aware of the problem, yet you continued to use the term for many years. Personally, I don't have a problem with the term, but Bus stop did, and others do as well, as this discussion demonstrates. With that in mind, it does seem like you are trying to bait Bus stop into some kind of reaction, knowing full well that he feels insulted by your terminology. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, the original problem brought by Bus Stop is resolved. We now have the issue of Bus Stop, and I'm suggesting a site ban on tagging articles with ethnic or religious tags. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Tagging itself can be resolved easily enough, once it is discovered - it can be reverted forthwith as a WP:BLP violation - the real problem is Bus Stop's disruptive abuse of article talk pages etc to promote such violations. It seems self-evident that he engages in such behaviour in order to grind down opposition with his repetitive Wikilawyering and refusal to acknowledge that Wikipedia has explicit policies on the subject. He needs to be topic-banned from any discussion on the subject too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Given Bus Stop's complete disregard for BLP and WP:V, I'd support a topic ban from all BLPs. Simple, clear, and cuts off the entire problem area. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The User likely will be deploying similar language in the future because it works. It serves a purpose. The User says "Should I have used that phrase? Probably not."[150] Such language has a Chilling effect, inhibiting further discussion. It is serving a purpose therefore the User will likely use it again. And other Users will also understand this behavior to be acceptable. The terminology "Jew-tagging" should not be permitted except where justifiable. The User is not using it to serve any defensible purpose. I hate to propose censorship, and I am not entirely doing that. There is a right place and a wrong place for any terminology. But this User is only deploying the terminology "Jew-tagging" as an epithet to discourage response. This use should be discouraged. Existing policy already clearly supports this. WP:NOTBATTLE already cautions us against "nurtur[ing] prejudice, hatred, or fear." Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If his intent was "to discourage response," it sure backfired on him, didn't it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Another example of Andy being brought up for what out of context would be unacceptable speech, which is however rendered understandable given the circumstances. {Andy, this is problematic: I really want to dislike you and your speechifications, but all too often you're right. Still, if you baited your opponent into ANIing, that's not OK.) I second Dougweller's call for a topic ban on BLP categories, and am not opposed to Ultraexactzz's proposal. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what I support here, but I will say that Andy's suggestion, a topic ban from discussing the subject, is the only suggestion that actually addresses the problem. A topic ban from tagging doesn't address the real issue, and almost certainly without further evidence a total BLP ban goes too far. The real problem here is Bus Stop's exhausting everyone with interminable arguments complete with ever-shifting goalposts. Andy's suggestion addresses exactly this and no more. It's surgical.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• • I'm going to note a few other recent interactions I've had with Bus Stop that show extremely difficult to work with and stubbornness on talk pages in general, not just BLP issues. (example Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2). Clearly the issues with this being BLP weigh a lot more in this favor, but this is just a continuation of a problematic editor that seems to rather spend more time on talk pages than article improvement. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am happy that AndyTheGrump said "Should I have used that phrase? Probably not.", but I disagree with Dougweller that this means that "the original problem brought by Bus Stop is resolved." I think AndyTheGrump should be blocked or voluntarily refrain from editing for a week for making such comments. Regarding Bus stop, I think the issues raised here should be discussed in an Rfc (either about the issue or about him as a user), and that this forum is not the right place to investigate this. Debresser (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban for BLP categories for Bus Stop. This is one incident too many. --John (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

John—let me call your attention to the aptly titled thread from 2012 The Jewish issue (again. In it you and "AndyTheGrump" carry on with the same offensive language that I am calling to our attention in this thread. You say "There is no need to be offended by the term "ethno-tagger" unless you are one." Aren't you part of the problem? As an administrator you seem oddly tolerant of "AndyTheGrump"'s reference to "infantile obsessive-compulsive Jew-tagging" in that 2012 thread. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have a slightly more nuanced suggestion.

There are three issues here, the content dispute, AndyTheGrump's behavior, and Bus Stop's behavior.

1. ANI does not hand down rulings on content disputes, and Andy has been here often enough to know full well that a wall of text that is mostly about the content dispute is wasting everyone's time. Being right does not excuse bad behavior, and being wrong doesn't make bad behavior worse. Give Andy a stern "TSK TSK" and a finger wag, or possibly a very small trout for this.
2. Bus Stop's behavior is clearly harmful to Wikipedia, and he has repeatedly shown that he is utterly incapable of conforming to Wikipedia's policies when the topic involves Judaism in any way. Give him an indefinite topic ban with an invitation to apply for removal after he has spent at least six months as a productive editor in other areas.
3. AndyTheGrump's behavior isn't anywhere near as harmful, but it is wrong, he knows that it is wrong, he doesn't care, and he counts on the fact that many administrators do not consider his behavior to be a blockable offense. There is a long history of one admin blocking Andy followed by another admin unblocking him.

Because of the above, I suggest a slowly escalating series for blocks for Andy. First a warning so he knows what is going to happen, then one day, then two days, three days, etc. I also suggest that if anyone disagrees, they should discuss it now and seek consensus rather than engaging in further block/unblock cycles.

This is close to what has been suggested above, but I think it is a bit more nuanced and better addresses the recurring conflict between admins. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Guy, I appreciate the nuance. Let me nuance a bit more (or less): this isn't about a conflict between admins, since admins are just as conflicted about civility blocks as regular editors. As I hinted above, Andy often goes too far, but that's "too far" in my opinion. Now, I'm more liberal (if that's the right word) than many others; if Andy gets blocked for a civility infraction I might not protest, though a block for "Jew-tagging" I will not agree with, since this is ridicule than disrespect. But I don't like the idea of escalating blocks, even though I can't quite explain why it rubs me the wrong way--I guess it's the suggestion of the robotification of blocks. Maybe. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Bus stop has been adding category tags to articles based on sources that identify the individuals as Jewish. User:AndyTheGrump has been removing / edit warring over these category tags, asserting that the sources don't support the claims. There's room for a principled disagreement here. But AndyTheGrump has shown a complete inability to act appropriately, best exemplified by this edit, with the summary of "I've had enough of this Jew-tagging troll" in which AndyTheGrump goes on a rather lengthy and extremely offensive anti-Semitic rampage in which he attacks Bus Stop as a "a complete imbecile or a clueless Jew-tagging troll" provoking Bus Stop to take this "to ANI because I've called you a clueless Jew-tagging troll", insists "that Wikipedia isn't a platform for Jew-tagging trolls" and talking about "your Jew-tagging agenda", an edit that crosses a line of decency that is entirely unacceptable. To call AndyTheGrump's behavior merely "wrong" is a drastic understatement of gigantic proportion. Malicious personal and religious attacks of this nature call for an extremely lengthy block of several months to years for User:AndyTheGrump, if not a permanent ban, not only for this utterly offensive incident but on top of a rather chronic behavioral problem that has resulted in a lengthy series of blocks. Once the AndyTheGrump issue is resolved, Bus stop may have a more productive experience dealing with editors who are willing to work on a collaborative basis. Alansohn (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Given the above entirely unwarrented accusation of antisemitism, I formally call for User:Alansohn to be blocked indefinitely. Meanwhile, anyone interested can check my edit history, and verify that I have been involved in no edit-warring over categories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Andy, don't be silly. Drop the drama. Alansohn appears to be a very poor reader of the hyphen, and their histrionics are just so much noise. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—let me give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your comments are not antisemitic. Then please explain to me your word constructions involving the word "Jew". We don't find "Jew-tagging" as terminology used beyond the borders of Wikipedia. We may have the need to come up with new language to discuss our unique working methods. But "Jew-tagging" is harsh language; nobody would want to be a Jew-tagger. As much as possible you should be using standard English. I think you should simply steer clear of inventing compound terms including the word "Jew". I'm not easily offended. But that terminology is offensive. If you don't find language used by for instance prominent journalistic outlets and other good quality reliable sources, it is a good indication that you should think twice before using that language here. Bus stop (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If you find the terminology offensive, perhaps you should consider whether the practice might be seen as offensive too. But you already know that it is, after User:RolandR, who also self-identifies as Jewish - and nonreligious - pointed out how personally offensive he found attempts to impose religious categories on others to be. [151]. I note that you failed to respond to his post. Perhaps you could explain why you chose not to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support any type of block or ban at all against User:AndyTheGrump. He has now had several weeks to apologize for calling me a “patronising little troll” lacking “an ounce of human decency” who should “Peddle your filth elsewhere.”[152] But no apology whatsoever. On the merits in the present instance, Bus Stop is wrong and Andy the Grump is right (as I have already said at BLPN). However, Grump exceeds all bounds of decency, and undermines the project with baseless personal attacks. As a Jew, and a veteran of the US Army who served in Germany, I am utterly appalled at Grump's foulmouthed tirade at me, ostensibly because I have some sort of callousness toward victims of the Nazis, which is patently absurd. I have warned Grump before to tone it done in his interaction with other editors,[153] as have countless others, and I have now had enough.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Would someone kindly tell me who's being anti-Semitic? I really want to know who I should hate. Meanwhile these two have made an unmitigated disaster of the BLPN board. Can an admin tell both of these annoyances that their antics are causing a disturbance on that board and to get a room and let the adults go about their business?Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  It's not a good idea to put out a fire with gasoline. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't like to see "Jew" tossed around as a pejorative in any context, but Alansohn, there's a gulf of difference between "you are a troll, tagging Jewish biographical articles inappropriately" (i.e. what was actually said) and "you are a Jewish troll, tagging biographical articles inappropriately" (i.e what you are insinuating). Tarc (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• There's a huge gulf between "you are a troll, tagging Jewish biographical articles inappropriately" (what may have been intended) and "I've called you a clueless Jew-tagging troll" (what was said on multiple occasions by User:AndyTheGrump). Use of the word "Jew" in this pejorative manner is intended to be offensive on a religious basis, and that's the definition of anti-Semitism. Alansohn (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

As everyone is clearly aware, it is Bus Stop who insists on labelling people as 'Jews', not me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Grump was not being antisemitic himself, but rather was implying antisemitism on the part of another editor. And anyone could be Grump's next target. Maybe it will be User:Bbb23 for reverting religion back into the Jordan Belfort infobox.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My intent was certainly not to suggest that Bus Stop is an antisemite - as far as I'm aware, he self-identifies as Jewish, and I have no reason whatsoever to doubt this. He is however clearly obsessed with labelling people as Jewish, and will go to inordinate lengths to argue a case for such labels, even when clearly inappropriate. As for Bbb23, I can't see evidence of any such edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no big difference between calling Bus Stop an antisemite and what you called him. Bbb23 diff here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

An edit made 11 days ago, and already reverted? You seem to be pulling 'evidence' out of thin air. As for what you 'see', your perception seems to be driven by what you want to see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your campaign of insults at BLPN has been going on so long now that you don't even realize the section of BLPN was precipitated by that edit of Bbb23.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. The section at BLPN was 'precipitated' by Bbb23 raising the edit there himself. I actually only participated in the discussion after I noticed that Bus Stop was yet again citing the very same unreliable source to back up his arguments. As my second post made clear, I had little enthusiasm for getting into what would inevitably be a long and tedious debate. With hindsight, I should probably have followed my instincts, and left the discussion for others. As much as I'd like to, I'm not going to be able to rid Wikipedia of the relentless policy-violating ethnotagging, tagging-by-religion-(unsourced) and the like all on my own, and I rarely get involved in such discussions lately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, yes, Bbb23 brought the matter to BLPN when his revert (the one you forgot about during your interminable tirade at BLPN) was itself reverted. Now go and take the last word if you like, because I have nothing more to say to you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I fail to see why the tern "Jew-tagging" is considered offensive. That is exactly what is happening here; editors (in this case Bus Stop) tagging people as Jewish, without reliable sources for such a tag. Andy is not making any comment, positive or negative, about Jews; he is commenting on those who seem to be obsessive in classifying others as Jews. It is this Jew-tagging that is offensive, and in my view antisemitic, not the act of pointing this out. I would support a topic ban, tagging or categorisation ban, related talk page ban and whatever other steps are necessary to put a stop to this constant flouting of Wikipedia's BLP policy. And I would vehemently oppose any sanctions against Andy for opposing this Jew-tagging. RolandR (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That is not true. As far as I know, Bus stop believes he does have reliable sources to support his tagging. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Bus Stop believes - or at least argues - that a reliable source for a living person being identified as Jewish is sufficient to label the person as Jewish by religion. WP:BLPCAT is however entirely clear that such sourcing is unacceptable. Unsurprisingly, since it isn't a source for what is being stated at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions on both parties. For those that don't know or for those who aren't keeping score, AndyTheGrump and User:Bus stop have been having this particular epistemological argument for almost four years at last count. Both parties have presented their arguments ad nauseum in every available noticeboard and forum. The fact of the matter is, they have both presented their cases, and rational people can choose which side to support and which to oppose based on the evidence they choose to accept or reject. In my opinion, AndyTheGrump's comments could be construed as offensive to Bus stop. At the same time, Bus stop's tagging could be interpreted as annoying by AndyTheGrump. At the end of the day, both editors have different interpretations and approaches, and they must learn to respect each other, and more importantly, consensus. I would like to see this thread closed with no sanctions on either party. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Could this be construed as a personal attack on me? "AndyTheGrump" says "Bus stop is simply an obsessive Jew-tagger and should be ignored accordingly."[154] Edit summary: " response to Bus stop's usual attempt to turn Wikipedia into 'The pop-up book of famous Jews"[155] Bus stop (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It could, if there were not a fair slice of truth in there. You do act like you have an obsession with adding ethnic categories to articles on people, regardless of policy and regardless of what the people themselves say. It would be better for everybody whose time is currently being wasted, and for you, if you were prevented from doing this. --John (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You could interpret it that way, yes. But you could also take it as face value and laugh it off. My own personal opinion is that AndyTheGrump did not intend to use the word "Jew" in an insulting way. It's problematic, of course, because without the right context, someone could misinterpret it as antisemitic, which I don't think it is. You could argue that it is insulting. In any case, I've been following this specific debate for years, and I don't think Andy meant to attack Jews as a religion or an ethnic group, but he did intend to attack you for tagging biographical articles. And of course, we know the community has a problem with enforcing PA's, so you're back at square one again. Unlike others, I don't think you should be prevented from doing this, because I've followed the discussion over the last four years, and on many occasions you've shown that you have reliable sources for your tagging. So the problem isn't your selective tagging of articles, it's the policies and guidelines of how to categorize BLP's. But, I am curious about John's comments above. John, do you believe that editors who have what you call "obsessions" on Wikipedia, should be prevented from acting on those obsessions by the community? Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Highlighting part of your comment with yellow is really annoying. It gives the comments of one editor extra weight. Sort of like SHOUTING IN BOLD CAPS, When adding emphasis, in my opinion bold, italic, and bold italic suffice. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• The problem that compounds the language problem ("Jew-tagging") is the offbeat understanding of Jews. "AndyTheGrump" says: "And incidentally, if he isn't 'religiously Jewish' (which he isn't), is he 'Jewish' at all?"[156] Bus stop (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Um, nice try Bus Stop, but anyone reading the diff will see that you have cherry-picked an irony-laden phrase out of context - one where I point out that according to the Halachic law you so frequently invoke, Adam Levine may well not be Jewish - and I go on to write that my opinion (in accord with Wikipedia policy) "If Adam Levine considers himself Jewish, and is proud of the fact, good for him - but that is for him to decide, not the Wikipedia Committee for Ethnobureacratic Classification and Stereotyping." AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—there is no "irony" in your statement: "And incidentally, if he isn't 'religiously Jewish' (which he isn't), is he 'Jewish' at all?"[157] This is not an ironic statement. You argue for a bright line of distinction between observant Jews and nonobservant Jews. It simply doesn't exist. But I never ask you to take my word for that. I show you sources. You can see that in this thread. Bus stop (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• • But, this isn't the place to continue the argument now, is it? Best to let this one go. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have my doubts about no sanctions, Viriditas, because I cannot believe that either Alansohn or Bus stop are in good faith in their arguments in this thread. Alansohn claims that Jew-tagging is "offensive on a religious basis" and evidence of an "anti-Semitic rampage" deserving "an extremely lengthy block of several months to years"; Bus stop claims that Andy's "word constructions involving the word "Jew"" are incomprehensible and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia because they're not used "by for instance prominent journalistic outlets and other good quality reliable sources". Do I really need to point out that Andy's not using those words in an article? He uses them in, and in order to refer to, "our unique working methods", that is to say to refer to to the wikipedia practice of "tagging". Bus stop, are you telling me you don't understand what Andy means by Jew-tagging? Suppose he had been talking about civility-tagging or NPOV-tagging, in an internal wikipedia discussion (again, of course nobody should use them in mainspace), would that also be inappropriate because those terms are not used beyond the borders of Wikipedia?

I agree that Alansohn deserves a block for his unconscionable accusation of antisemitism, and so I support Andy's call for a block. That's a personal attack if there ever was one. Alansohn made it here, and after Tarc had tried to explain what was wrong with his argument, he reiterated it here, in if possible even more IDIDNTHEARTHAT terms. And a topic ban for Bus stop per User:RolandR above seems entirely appropriate to me. Bishonen | talk 22:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen—are you deliberately misconstruing what I said in this post? I did not imply anything was "incomprehensible". You say "Bus stop, are you telling me you don't understand what Andy means by 'Jew-tagging'?"[158] I did not say or imply anything remotely like that. I find problematic the off-the-cuff, flippant, invention of compound terms incorporating the term "Jew". Bus stop (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think she's saying that you said you didn't understand, she's saying that you've demonstrated that you don't understand. Seems straightforward. --Calton | Talk 22:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. As a general observation, this guideline says it's fine to have a category like "Jewish musicians" based on ethnicity rather than religion. And putting someone in that category doesn't amount to being a "Jew tagging troll" which is an obvious and very disparaging allusion to Nazis affixing yellow stars to Jews. This is not a religious categorization, so I don't see why it would require treatment by editors exactly as a religious categorization.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps Wikipedia ought to get rid of all ethnic categories. I don't know. But people working within the existing categorization system ought not be constantly compared to Nazis, either explicitly or implicitly. Such comparison rightly offended User:Alansohn even if he expressed himself poorly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so now you are accusing me of comparing Bus Stop to a Nazi? Based on nothing but your fertile imagination. Talk about clutching at straws. Or tilting at Windmills. Or whatever... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

When I say "Jew tagging troll" it's an obvious allusion to Nazis affixing yellow stars to Jews. When you say it, it may be intended as a wonderful compliment, who knows? How about just not using language that others will construe as a personal attack? You might get more accomplished that way. I know what kind of foul language you're unapologetically capable of, Andy, so don't try this Miss Innocence routine on me. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your fertile (if somewhat jaundiced) imagination is of little relevance to this debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That's for others to decide, and they may well err as you have (serially).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the terminology of "tagging Jews" brings to mind the "tagging of Jews" by the Yellow stars. I do not find the reference at all farfetched. I failed to mention it but this reference seemed obvious to me. Bus stop (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If that analogy holds (it doesn't--it's ridiculous, and a variety of Godwin's law), then Andy would be calling you the Jew-tagger, that is the Nazi, which would make it even more unlikely that Andy would be antisemitic. Remember, you're the one adding categories--that is, tagging. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I went to Bus stop's user talk recently and patiently described the pertinent policy and guideline about religious and ethnic categorization. And he subsequently announced that he is not supporting "Religion:Jewish" in the Belfort infobox (which is what the fuss at BLPN was about). In fact, Bus stop is not the one who put "Religion:Jewish" into the Belfort infobox (that was Bbb23[159] who later acknowledged that it shouldn't go there even though Belfort is ethnically Jewish). I don't doubt that Bus stop has been a pain in the neck in the past, but I honestly don't think anyone ever referred him to the pertinent guideline, as I did recently at his talk page. There are no diffs of any recent bad article edits by Bus stop, AFAIK. And it's gratifying that Grump has acknowledged that he shouldn't have attacked Bus stop in the way he did.[160]Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I was blissfully unaware of this thread until making the mistake a few minutes ago of looking at Wikipedia before I went to bed, so I thought I'd delay that and come take my lumps. It was my error to restore Jewish to the religion field in the infobox. I didn't put it in there in the first instance, but I did put it back. I compounded my error by then complaining about it being removed at BLPN. As Anythingyouwant says, I later acknowledged my error, with the help of a few good editors, in particular one, but I did kind of start the mess. To explain, not excuse, my error, I was conflating Jewish cats with the infobox. We often apply BLPCAT to labels in the infobox, and with some religious labels, i.e., Catholic, you can no more say religion=Catholic than you can say cat=Catholic actor unless the conditions of BLPCAT are met (self-identification mainly). But that doesn't work for the Jewish descriptor because of the issue of religion vs. culture (what others call ethnicity). So, my addled brain was thinking that because you could rightfully say cat=American Jews because of the ambiguity, you could also rightfully put it in the infobox. It was simply a stupid lapse on my part. Ironically, when I used to hang out a lot at BLPN, I was always fighting the categorization of BLPs as Jews. I will now vote on the Bus stop topic ban and go to bed.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban to prevent Bus stop continuing their campaign to tag every possible page with "X is Jewish". The issue is contentious and requires much more nuance that Bus stop seems capable of. In any particular case, it may be justified to interpret sources to assert someone's Jewishness, but the discussion at WP:BLPN#Jordan Belfort and WP:BLPCAT indicates that anything plausible will be used by Bus stop to justify a tag, including "Jews may be atheist ... and still Jews". The term "X is Jewish" becomes meaningless if it might refer to X's mother, or upbringing, or beliefs, or current religious observance, or cultural affiliation. By contrast WP:BLPCAT asserts "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Johnuniq (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello? I just explained that current guidelines treat being "Jewish" as an ethnic category, and not just a religious category. If you think it ought to be just a religious category, then change the guideline I just linked to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If someone is arguing for including "Religion: Jewish" in an infobox, it would seem safe to assume that they are applying a religious categorisation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If you would kindly reread the last comment by User:Johnuniq, he is arguing against the idea that "Jews may be atheist ... and still Jews". That argument seems to contradict Wikipedia guidelines such as this one. Uniq did not mention infoboxes, I did not mention infoboxes, and infoboxes have nothing to do with whether the statement "Jews may be atheist ... and still Jews" is a correct statement. Anyway, I have things to do, and would prefer not to get into a week-long pie-throwing contest debate about this like you (Andy) conducted at BLPN. So, I'm out of here (at least assuming that no one proposes sanctions against me now). Have a nice January.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I seem to be the only person here who sees Andy's term "Jew-tagging" as an analog to "Jew-baiting", a reference to a mode of behavior seen as insensitive and often unsavory, but not necessarily full-throatedly antisemitic. I see no reason to conclude the term is either a reference to Nazis or itself a manifestation of antisemitism. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you're the only one. Clearly Andy has found a polemic shortcut for "categorizing as Jewish by either faith or ethnicity". Bus stop may call that antisemitic but we know why they would; why Alansohn would call it that I don't know, though I'll AGF and just blame it on poor grammar education. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The language we are discussing is unnecessary. The language we are discussing is wholly gratuitous. We don't have to find such language antisemitic to find it unacceptable. Our level of discourse should be based upon the best that is out there. We shouldn't be looking inward. All of the good quality journalistic outlets tend to follow carefully scripted language practices. They adjust their language usage as terms come into and go out of vogue. If a Google News search finds zero usage for a term, it is a good bet that we shouldn't be using it either. This of course applies in article space, but it is a good idea to endeavor to keep Talk page spaces in conformance with the best quality language usage available. Bus stop (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The behavior we are discussing is unnecessary. The behavior we are discussing is wholly gratuitous and is unacceptable. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The best quality language usage available would not include the terminology "Jew-tagging". Again: we don't have to find it antisemitic to find it unacceptable. The historical use of the Yellow badge is a form of "Jew-tagging", is it not? Bus stop (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support any sanction, whether it be a BLPCAT topic ban or a full BLPBAN, for Bus stop. Although I don't necessarily condone AndyTheGrump's overly-expressive language here and at the related BLPN discussion, I certainly understand (and empathize with) his frustration. I stopped commenting at any BLPN discussion regarding Jewish categories involving Bus Stop a very long time ago as the experience was too painful. I'm sure I'm not the only one who became worn down by the IDIDNTHEARTHAT responses and endless repetition of the same arguments. I'm grateful that Andy has shown more fortitude than me and I don't support any sanctions against him at this time regarding this issue. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• For <insert deity's name>'s sake, "Jew-tagging", "bear-tagging" ... it's not offensive whatsoever. It's random or systemic tagging for classification or tracking purposes - exactly what Bus stop should be banned form doing ES&L 01:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban for Bus stop

Reading through the above thread, the only sanction that I can see emerging as at all widely supported is a topic ban for Bus stop. The following ten users have proposed it in different terms:

1. Dougweller: "I'm suggesting a site ban on tagging articles with ethnic or religious tags."
2. AndyTheGrump: "an indefinite topic ban on anything relating to Jewish identities and living persons is the appropriate remedy"
3. Ultraexactzz: "I'd support a topic ban from all BLPs. Simple, clear, and cuts off the entire problem area."
4. Drmies:"I second Dougweller's call for a topic ban on BLP categories, and am not opposed to Ultraexactzz's proposal."
5. John: "I support a topic ban for BLP categories for Bus Stop. This is one incident too many."
6. Guy Macon: "Give [Bus stop] an indefinite topic ban [when the topic involves Judaism in any way] with an invitation to apply for removal after he has spent at least six months as a productive editor in other areas"
7. RolandR: "I would support a topic ban, tagging or categorisation ban, related talk page ban and whatever other steps are necessary to put a stop to this constant flouting of Wikipedia's BLP policy."
8. Bishonen: "a topic ban for Bus stop per User:RolandR above seems entirely appropriate to me."
9. Johnuniq: "Support topic ban to prevent Bus stop continuing their campaign to tag every possible page with "X is Jewish".
10. Ponyo: "Support any sanction, whether it be a BLPCAT topic ban or a full BLPBAN, for Bus stop"

• I'll try to summarize the options:

Option 1: Bus stop is topic banned from adding ethnic or religious categories to BLPs.
Option 2: Bus stop is topic banned from adding any categories to BLPs.
Option 3: Bus stop is topic banned from all pages and discussions relating to Jewish identities and living persons.
Option 4: Bus stop is topic banned from all BLPs and their talkpages.

Note Jan 31: An option 5, "Bus stop is topic banned from all pages related to Judaism", was added to this list on Jan 29,[161] removed the same day,[162] readded Jan 30,[163] and again removed.[164]. Some people have referred to option 5 in the discussion below, but it's probably safest to assume people that don't mention it weren't aware of it. Bishonen | talk 12:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC).

If anybody feels they can summarize it better, do please feel free, because I'm not particularly confident about this four-barelled proposal; it seems a little byzantine. Please discuss below, and if you support a ban, please indicate which option(s) and also for how long. I'll start the ball rolling:

• Support an indefinite ban per whichever of options 2, 3, and 4 gets more support. (My reservation w r t Option 1 is that I can see it leading to endless argument about which categories qualify as ethnic or religious and which don't.) Bishonen | talk 00:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC).

(edit conflict) Bishonen–there have been no diffs brought. I read at the top of this page: "Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting." I would be opposed to a Kangaroo court style of justice. Please bring diffs. Also please respond to this. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

They know they don't need evidence for a topic ban. Hell, most editors are blocked with little to no evidence. You seem to forget how this place works. The irony, of course, is that the evidence presented in this thread by your detractors exonerates you, demonstrating that the conflict over categorizing Jews exists independently of your participation. In fact, the evidence presented against you has little to nothing to do with your contributions. To conclude, the rationale for this topic ban is a fraud. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting the way the process operates. When asked for evidence in the form of "diffs", those who support sanctions against me turn a deaf ear. Obviously few "diffs" are available and not enough of good enough quality to justify sanctions. Bus stop (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite ban per whichever of options 2, 3, and 4 gets more support. Bus Stop's extreme tendentiousness in the above thread engenders empathy for AndyTheGrump, as does the unseriousness of AndyTheGrump's detractors — goethean 00:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support each and every -- I first ran into him at Judaism so the problem is not only BLPs, but it is sure where the most heat has been generated. I dislike draconian solutions, but this one has been long in coming. Collect (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support all options, with preference given to the most severe restriction. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Bus stop is passionate, and he courageously speaks his mind. Tedious at times; perhaps unrelenting at times; but he doesn't back down and he never - never attacks other editors. To each his/her own and some sensitivity is called for...Modernist (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2-4 as above. Israel/Palestine, Judaism, and related topic areas are a nasty, hostile area to edit in, which is why I have largely abandoned it. Any action that pries a tendentious editor out of the morass can only be a net positive. Andy's rhetoric is sub-optimal, but asking anyone to turn a cheek to what Bus Stop has been upto for years is simply too much to expect from anyone. Tarc (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support All, but especially options 3 and four 5. His mode of discussion of the categories is far more problematic than his adding of them. He is either incapable of understanding plain English or pretends to be. In either case he can't or won't discuss these issues constructively. Tedious+unrelenting=tendentious. (edit) Supporting 5 rather than 4; not 4 per AndyTheGrump, yes 5 per my experiences with him over the years in Palestine/Israeli matters, which parallel his tendentious editing in BLP as discussed and displayed on the present occasion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe Bus Stop may well have been brought around to seeing the error of his ways if he had been spoken to with a minimal amount of politeness, instead of with the ridicule, contempt, incivility, personal attacks, and disparagement that were richly on display in the BLPN thread. That is still possible, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I thought "diffs" were important. Can those "supporting" bring a collection of recent "diffs" for my supposedly problematic input? I read at the top of this page: "Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting." Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a question for you, Bishonen.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was a question for Bishonen. Bishonen was also asked a question here. Bus stop (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• No. Those instructions are intended for the context of initial reporting of a problem. When an editors own contributions within the ANI thread clearly indicate the basis of the ban proposal diffs would be a bureaucratic redundancy.NE Ent 02:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NE Ent—it is not "bureaucratic redundancy"; it is an absence of evidence. Bus stop (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support--I'll have 2 and 3 please. [Drmies on the run.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.40.38 (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 3, indefinitely. I suspect that 1 or 2 might well be seen by Bus Stop as a license to continue the same pattern of talk-page tendentiousness. I can't in good faith support 4, given that I've not really seen sufficient evidence of his behavioural problems extending beyond issues around 'Jewishness' to convince me it is really necessary, and I get the impression that some of the art-related work he has done has been beneficial to the project - editing subjects where he feels less personal involvement might just possibly bring around a change of heart, even at this late stage. If his behaviour (which is likely to remain under close scrutiny) does then prove problematic beyond the matters discussed here, we will of course have the option of imposing further topic bans etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support any or all. Seven years of tendentious and disruptive editing in this area is probably a long enough period to draw conclusions about a pattern of conduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2 and 3. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2. Would not outright ban him on talk pages of those pages covered in #2, but a stern caution is if Bus Stop can't drop the stick when clearly the rest of the discussion has moved on, that's grounds for blocking as well. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support all per ToAT. NE Ent 02:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all topic ban proposals. Ironically, the evidence listed in this discussion allegedly showing that Bus stop has been "tendentious" and causing conflict actually shows the complete opposite and exonerates him. In the three primary examples listed in this thread, namely Adam Levine, Ed Miliband, and Jordan Belfort, Bus stop was correct in alleging that these people self-identify as Jews. This has angered several editors who have been trying very hard to remove this self-identification from these and other articles. This current conflict results from a dispute at Jordan Belfort, a dispute that has nothing to do with Bus stop. While it is true that Bus stop has had problems in the past, he has stayed out of trouble since 2011. If one looks closely at the evidence in this thread being used against him as a justification for a topic ban, one is forced to conclude that Bus stop is innocent and that this discussion is another example of Wikipedia groupthink at work. Certain editors on one side of this dispute are attempting to silence Bus stop, who has been calm and civil while dealing with a barrage of personal attacks on the noticeboards. A topic ban would reward those who would seek to impose sanctions on their ideological rivals and punish those who remain steadfast and strong in the face of such intimidation. I believe he was wrong to accuse others of antisemitism, but his error is understandable considering the confusing verbiage. I don't, however, believe this mistake should result in a topic ban. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Viriditas. Anyone voting for sanctions against me should read this Jordan Belfort thread on the BLP/N. I didn't initiate it. I didn't even argue for "Religion: Jewish" in the Belfort Infobox. I support our policy on WP:BLPCAT. I understand it and I support it. But I nevertheless reserve the right to respond to comments that I think are misguided—either innocently or by caprice. The discussion went on, but I wasn't the only driving force behind its perpetuation. Bus stop (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Bus stop certainly did not put "Religion:Jewish" into the Belfort infobox (unlike other editors), and he is not arguing for "Religion:Jewish" in the Belfort infobox, and he is about to be topic-banned because of....the Belfort infobox?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Viriditas and Anythingyouwant's reasoning above which are both very well put. I may not agree with all of Bus stop's tactics but I have seen over the years a pattern of backing him into a corner and then bringing him to these sorts of noticeboards. It's despicable, frankly. freshacconci talk to me 02:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, freshacconci. This is a game that "AndyTheGrump" plays. In his very first post in the Jordan Belfort and WP:BLPCAT thread he/she says "And there is no way whatsoever that Wikipedia is ever going to define anyones religion on the basis that their mother was Jewish. That is not only contrary to policy, it is just plain stupid."[165] Why is he referring to defining religion "on the basis that their mother was Jewish"? This has nothing to do with the preceding conversation. Certainly nothing said by me. And is it "just plain stupid"? Orthodox Judaism maintains that it is the mother that determines whether the child is Jewish. Is this "just plain stupid"? "AndyTheGrump" starts off abrasively. Is this the way Wikipedia should conduct itself? I started this AN/I thread to address a problem. It is difficult if not impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone whose input is so abrasive. Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The process is interesting. Due to the peculiarities of WP:Boomerang one can't address problems such as abusive editors such as "AndyTheGrump" without having sanctions brought on oneself. The process is such that "AndyTheGrump" is free to heap abuse on others without any possibility of repercussion. Bus stop (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support any/all. The intersections of culture/ethnicity/religion wrt judaism/jewishness is a complex area and needs to be approached carefully. Someone who is so determined to force through his own interpretations needs to be removed from the topic area. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support whichever option casts the widest net. Epicgenius (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, and 3. I have not done the research to justify supporting 4. Tagging ethnicity/culture/religion may be fine if conducted by an organization with a formal structure where the meaning of the tags can at least be guessed, and where consistency can be assumed, but it is problematic here where people can argue (against the WP:BLPCAT policy) that "X is Jewish" is justified by tradition or descent or culture or religious observance, while others believe that such thinking is from the 1950s—when a reader sees "X is Jewish" are they supposed to think "Oh! That explains it!"? Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Option 5: Bus stop is topic banned from all pages related to Judaism.

• Note: all the !votes above this comment were posted before option 5 was added. This means that supporting my suggested topic ban was not an option. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all per Alansohn's comment in the discussion up above. Bus stop has been adding categories based on sources, and Andy's been removing them with his characteristic level of civility. Sanctions should be placed for removing information based on sources, not for adding it. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Alansohn 110% that the "Use of the word 'Jew' in this pejorative manner is intended to be offensive on a religious basis"[166]. All arguments to the contrary should be rejected summarily. Bus stop (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support options 2 or 3 per my comment in the preceding section.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 05:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Bus Stop has only acknowledged a problem, that he found as either ethnic slur or racial slur. It is offensive, "Jew tagging" has only 200-230 results, on Google. Making it no official, but made up insult. Kindly check both's block history. Who is less disruptive. Banning is certainly not a solution for Bus Stop. Noteswork (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support all five ban options. --John (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, what is Bus stop doing wrong here? Does the Who is a Jew? argument make it semantically impossible to tag Jews as Jewish? I did not see any evidence of improper behavior by Bus stop, while Andy's outright rudeness is evident even in the discussion above. Shii (tock) 08:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support all five sanctions, having read through the frankly depressing thread above. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what Andy has done, and that discussion belongs in a separate thread; it's clear that Bus stop is completely unable to edit productively in this area, and has no grasp of BLPCAT or WP:RS. Several editors here are clearly letting their dislike of Andy take precedence over what is happening (Alansohn and Anythingyouwant being two obvious examples; Alansohn not even bothering to read what Andy actually wrote properly at pretty much any point in the thread). Noteswork's oppose vote borders on the ridiculous (of course it won't come up on Google, considering that it's a direct reference to a Wikipedia process!) If you want to propose some sanction for Andy, open up a separate sub-thread. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Outright bullying is what I see, and loads of apologetics for incivility. It is not OK to call editors Jew-tagging trolls. I see masses of Palestinian Arab-troll tagging, with people adding that identification to articles when it is so false and without sourcing as to be ridiculous. Nobody has put a name on it yet. Thank you Grump for giving it a name.--Silmiyyah (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support all bans. Bus stop has continued to edit against consensus and to have entered into numerous disputes with other editors. Obviously they cannot edit in a collegial manner. TFD (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • TFD, nowhere in this discussion is there any evidence of Bus stop editing against consensus. Nowhere. And there is no evidence of any incivility either. Perhaps you are responding to the wrong discussion? It is AndyTheGrump who is accused of editing in a less than collegial manner, not Bus stop. And as for consensus on the matter at hand, Bus stop did not act against consensus in the matter of Jordan Belfort, which is where this latest dispute originated from in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic bans. The verbiage being complained about is only offensive for the use of troll, but I think Andy had reason to use that term. "Jew" is not offensive. I asked about this on the Judaism project some time ago when I was concerned over its use in articles. Andy told the editor to go to ANI if they wanted to complain. That IS NOT BAITING! I tell people that all the time when I am finished discussing their complaint of something they didn't like. It gives them the information they need to make a formal complaint. It is not baiting and is not actionable. I am concerned that Andy may have overreacted, but if someone is tagging articles to just proclaim the subject is Jewish...it is as wrong as labeling someone as gay if they do not self identify as such. Period.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Except, this ANI report does not involve Bus stop tagging anyone, and in the three articles listed as "problematic" in this thread by Andy, all three subjects self-identified as Jewish. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I understand that Viriditas, but the complaint regarded someone being called a "A Jew tagging troll". Like many editors, they may well have tagged some correctly, but if the issue is someone who is out of control and obsessed to a point that all they seem to do, or the majority of their work is to tag subjects as Jewish...that just seems like a red flag for a temp topic ban regardless of that editor opening a complaint against another.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
      • After reading your post and looking a tad further I think it best to forget all bans for the moment and refocus on the content issues. Andy may have over reacted to an editor that he felt was too gungho but seems to have done little wrong aside from complaining about a non issue. A thicker skin is needed to edit Wikipedia. No reason to ban the editor for just being correct and another not liking that fact. I have altered my !vote.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• 'Support' 3; open-minded about all others. It is necessary to put a stop to this constant tagging, and the interminable talk page discussions. And let's please dispose of the red herring here: Neither Andy not anyone else is proposing removing any mention that Belfort is, or identifies as, Jewish. What is at issue here, and in many of the previous arguments, is Bus Stop's insistence that if, under Jewish religious law, a person is considered Jewish, then this is sufficient evidence to insist that their religion be listed as Jewish, regardless of their own statements. RolandR (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - A number of !votes here seem to be based on misconceptions. A key issue seems to be that Bus stop advocates the view that RS based information that supports ethnicity=X for an individual can be transformed into religion=X (or some variation such as nonobservant), in an infobox for example. He claims this transformation is valid and consistent with the decision procedure described by WP:BLPCAT under certain conditions, when X=Jewish (and perhaps for other ethnoreligious groups although I haven't seen evidence of that). This view is inconsistent with BLPCAT, which says "Categories regarding religious beliefs...should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief ...in question, and the subject's beliefs...are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources...These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs..." A number of examples of his advocacy of this transformation of information about ethnicity into information about religious beliefs have already been provided. This is not about removal of information based on self-identification. It's not about anyone adding categories based on sources, and someone else removing them. It's not about it being "semantically impossible to tag Jews as Jewish". It's about the addition or advocacy for the addition of information about religion/religious beliefs without self-identification and sourcing that supports that information. The editors who have !voted based on misconceptions should go back and review the discussion, the examples and amend their statements accordingly. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sean, that's not true. You wrote that "a number of examples of his advocacy of this transformation of information about ethnicity into information about religious beliefs have already been provided". The examples that have been provided are of Jordan Belfort (self-identifies as a Jew), Ed Miliband (self-identifies as a Jew), and Adam Levine (self-identifies as a Jew). There is no "advocacy" by Bus stop here. Quite the opposite, actually. Ironically, in all three instances above, we have editors obsessively arguing for days on end that even when these people self-identify as Jews they still cannot be categorized as Jews. So no matter how much one adheres to BLPCAT, someone will try and dispute it based on what it means to be Jewish. The problem here has nothing whatsoever to do with Bus stop. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Look more closely e.g. Talk:Ed_Miliband/Archive_2#Planned_WP:BOLD_edit (search for 'Bus stop (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2010) or Talk:Ed_Miliband/Archive_2#Ethnicity_in_infobox (search for 'Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2011'). Sean.hoyland - talk 10:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, you do need to look more closely. In the 2010 discussion you linked to above, we see Bus stop making calm, rational arguments, with consensus against him, although it must be said, there were a wide range of opinions. Then we see AndytheGrump editing against consensus, and even admitting it in the discussion at 17:17, 7 December 2010. AndytheGrump does the same thing in the next discussion from May 2011 where he edits against consensus established on the talk page and even starts attacking Bus stop. If your links were intended to chastise Bus stop and exonerate AndytheGrump, then I'm afraid you didn't look at them. Based on those two discussions you linked, if you are going to topic ban Bus stop, then you must also topic ban AndytheGrump for engaging in the exact same tendentious behavior. Keep in mind, of course, that these two have been at it for four years or more. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The links were intended to demonstrate Bus stop advocating the transformation I described. Nothing more, nothing less. There are many examples in those threads (and others). e.g.

• His religion doesn't switch from being Jewish to being "no religion" or "None" as a consequence of his being nonobservant.
• The article happens to say that "Miliband is Jewish, but not religious." I am suggesting that in the Infobox it read: "Religious identity: Jewish
• Jews are commonly understood to be under the umbrella of Judaism whether they are observant of that religion or not. This is different than Christianity—Jewish identity depends on birth or conversion. Miliband's status did not change from having a religion to not having a religion as a consequence of failing to observe Jewish ritual. (Judaism functions differently than Christianity in this regard.).

Bus stop has advocated this ethnicity->religion transformation many times over the years. This is common knowledge. Links to articles that contain evidence of his advocacy have been provided on many occasions, including here. The claims by several editors that evidence has not been provided are false. Several opinions have been provided based on false premises. What action should the community take to deal with Bus stop's advocacy ? I don't care or else I would have !voted. How should the community deal with Andy's colorful language ? I really couldn't give a shit. The world will keep turning what ever happens, but the information in the discussion should at least be accurate, the !votes should be based the actual state of affairs so that the outcome is valid and consistent with the data. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Supposing there is antisemitism—can it be spoken of? Or are any and all intimations of antisemitism beyond the realm of discussion? Supposing I think that "Jew-tagging" has a 99% possibility of being interpreted as being antisemitic and only a 1% likelihood of being read as not antisemitic? Am I allowed to say that? Why can't we talk about antisemitism? Are all Wikipedia editors non-antisemitic? That would be unlikely—wouldn't it? And wouldn't any editor that harbored a dislike of Jews try to skirt the line of blatant versus hidden expression of such dislike of Jews? Sure—we are to give "AndyTheGrump" the benefit of the doubt concerning the use of the phrase "Jew-tagging". That is proper protocol. But an objection is being lodged here. I have filed an objection to the use of language that I find indefensible. What is the defense of this language ("Jew-tagging")? It's not serving a purpose and it should be stopped. My own misgivings about my filing of this complaint is that I am opposed to the censorship aspects of what I'm advocating in calling for the cessation of the use of the phrase "Jew-tagging". But that doesn't mean that we as a community cannot reach a rough agreement that the use of that phrase should be pared back. I'm bothered by those who say they see no problem in the phrase, as if that alleviates the problem. If anything the expression of such sentiments, in the absence of a call for reducing the use of the phrase, exacerbates the problem. The problem is the phrase "Jew-tagging". To me it is unacceptable. Your mileage may vary, but I find that language to be abrasive, coarse, hostile, and an impediment to the discourse that has to take place on a Talk page. It is at the very least "name-calling". ("Bus stop is simply an obsessive Jew-tagger and should be ignored accordingly."[167]) We should keep the use of the phrase "Jew-tagging" to a minimum. Bus stop (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If those difficult questions are addressed to me you have probably picked the wrong person. I don't really care about civility on Wikipedia. It matters to me in the real world but here incivility just seems like a distraction from dealing with the content issues. Editing in the very hostile WP:ARBPIA topic area for years builds immunity or word blindness. I've seen so much incivility here, orders of magnitude more than I've encountered in my entire life in the real world. Look at the log file of my talk page. Those are all truely appalling (but amusingly off target) attacks with some novelty threats of violence thrown in. I don't mind. It's just people losing their tempers, lashing out etc. I think the policy should be scrapped. Reasonable people (not the lunatics in the log) sometimes say things they probably shouldn't say. C'est la vie. Why worry about it ? We're here to build an encyclopedia. Andy's a reasonable guy. So are you. Why not just ask him not to use that phrase again ? He might want something in return though. For interest, I don't find the term "Jew-tagging" unacceptable but then I don't really find any words unacceptable. I don't really know how to measure that here anymore. If it's unacceptable to you, I guess it's unacceptable that someone would say it to you. But language like that used in anger or frustration doesn't happen in a vacuum. There's a trajectory with causes and effects on it. So for me it's not just about focusing on particular points on that path, particular phrases. That isn't enough. My comments have focused on your role, which is only part of the issue, but that is because I don't care about incivility here, partly I have to say, because it's a problem that doesn't seem to have a solution, so I don't concern myself with it. Plenty of other people do. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You say "incivility just seems like a distraction from dealing with the content issues"[168]. That is exactly what I am saying. I am simply arguing for standard English in accordance with language and terminology used by good quality on-topic sources. Let me be clear that I am not really "offended" by the phrase. It's not like I start pulling out my hair and bouncing off the ceiling. My objection to the use of that phrase is that it puts an impediment to productive communication in place. It is a phrase that shifts the discussion into a zone of pettiness and unproductiveness. It is just an obstacle to addressing whatever issue is actually at hand. My concern goes beyond merely the phrase "Jew-tagging". My objection is to coarse speech. I don't want to be told to "put up, or shut up". When I express objection to this, the User just repeats it: "I do. I just did. And I'll do so again. Put up, or shut up". I reserve the right to use a Talk page for its primary purpose. Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"Put up or shut up" isn't especially uncivil. It just means "Get on with it". John Major famously used it in 1995, for example. It isn't spectacularly polite, but it falls a very long way from being actionable according to our norms. --John (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with John. "Put up or shut up" is very mild. Forbidden stuff would be more like "Bus stop is a Jew-tagging bigot.”[169] Bus stop is “a complete imbecile or a clueless Jew-tagging troll with OCD”.[170] Bus stop is “someone who wishes for Wikipedia to publish lies.”[171]Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland—in this thread you have said to "AndyTheGrump": "So, you haven't made any policy violating edits based on a conflation of ethnicity and religious beliefs or a misuse of reliably sourced information about one aspect of a person's identity, ethnicity, to draw policy violating conclusions about another aspect of their identity, religion. Thought not."[172] Bus stop (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

And, Sean.hoyland, in that thread you have said to ""AndyTheGrump": "Come on Andy. Surely it's trivial for you to dig up a diff that demonstrates one of the many occasions you have treated Christians as an ethnoreligious group where the ambiguity of the statement "I'm a Christian" by a living person confused you to the extent that you were unsure which aspect of their identity they were referring to, their ethnicity or their religious beliefs, but because you know what it means to be Christian, even in a ethnic sense, you went ahead with Ethnicity=Christian in the infobox anyway."[173] Bus stop (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Was there a question ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• oppose -- I agree strongly with Viriditas, and urge the person who will close this to read his post carefully. In addition: this issue emerges in part from Andy's conniptions, which might lead some to suggest with me that if this issue causes Andy angst then perhaps his focus is best placed elsewhere. Bus-stop is persistent (one might say dogged), but he is civil. If others disagree with him, fine, but I don't see disruption here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to give him that. He is really Civil. Noteswork (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Do Wikipedia's rules allow an editor to advocate their model of X (identity in this case) and/or apply that model to articles about living people without evidence that complies with WP:BLPCAT ? When does that kind of behavior cross the fuzzy line into disruption ? It seems to me that the degree of civility isn't relevant to these questions. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree Sean; in this case civility is crucial and indicative of character - especially as these long drawn out discussions become heated. Bus stop is an important - if dissenting voice - to many of the articles that he contributes to. While others often disagree with him, and while his opinions are unpopular regarding certain BLP subjects his voice should not be silenced...Modernist (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nicely explained by Modernist. Indeed, Bus stop has been less disruptive for last 3 years. We know there are editors who commit higher amount of offense. If he is amusing WP:Goodfaith and has suggestion based on references. He can be accepted, not certainly opposed. Noteswork (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that many people hold that view of civility here. One of the consequences is that editors who want to engineer content to match their model of the world are best served by employing civility to achieve their objectives. Civility is a valuable tool under these circumstances and performs better than incivility, but both are just surface features. The objectives remain the same and are independent of the presentation style. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree Sean that civility certainly helps putting forward your objectives and points of view regarding the world - and how you present material in articles - however the predominant criteria still rests on reliable sources and writing quality. I should add - Bus stop often backs his input with reliable sources...Modernist (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

He does indeed often find sources, that's true. He is not a bad person. I could say many good things about his editing but I hate to dwell on the positive. Unfortunately he has a hobby horse and it's his horse that causes problems. Given that he's a painter, and given that so very many articles about artists are in a bad state or don't exist, I just wish that he would spend his time more constructively, like you, rather than wasting it trying to convince people that it's okay to make decisions about someone's beliefs and putting that in an encyclopedia without their input. It's just wrong and pointless. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. This whole thing is ridiculous. Andy started throwing around slurs, and when he was called on it, the primary victim of those slurs was attacked. Viriditas and Nomoskedasticity and the rest are 100% correct, and the usual religion-hating crowd should be slapped with a trout. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Religion-hating crowd? Citation needed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose As I explained in the section above this one, I think this is not the right forum to come to this conclusion. WP:RFC/USER is where I think this should go, and I think the intention should be guiding Bus stop rather than blocking him. His contributions over the years have been valuable, and his behavior normative. A user like that deserves the effort a RFC/USER who provide for giving guidance. Debresser (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose all proposed measures against "Bus stop" because this thread presents no evidence of disruptive behavior or even links to prior discussions of such. So it surely looks like a Wikipedia:POV railroad to a hitherto uninvolved observer/editor. If this has been going on for years as claimed, surely a RfC/U can be filed with some evidence. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Support civility wp:trout to AndyTheGrump though; that problem has been documented above well enough. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• On a procedural note I'd like to mention that User:Bishonen who created this section [174] should have listed not only those in favor of a topic ban, but those opposed as well. As is, he creates an unfair impression. Debresser (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• No, they shouldn't have, and to suggest that is daft. There was, at that point, a consensus emerging that some kind of action was needed, so Bishonen opened the thread, citing the views of those who viewed that this particular course of action is necessary. Now, there is probably no consensus either way (it looks roughly 50-50), so wikilawyer-esque comments like that really aren't needed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• I make it 20:14, and we can probably strike out some of the 14 as being people with various anti-Andy agendas. Not sure if we can call this consensus yet, but it isn't 50-50 by any means. --John (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No one has an anti- bus-stop agenda?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You'r obfuscating the issue, as it is an advocacy agenda being pursued by the editor under discussion that is at issue in this thread.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean Andy's advocacy of the notion that Bus stop is a "Jew-tagging bigot"?[175] Bus stop has disclaimed any intent to put "Religion:Jewish" into the Belfort infobox,[176] he is not the editor who put it there in the first place,[177] and he has explicitly accepted BLPCAT.[178]Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

And how would an "anti-Andy" !vote be determined? I only know him in passing, so I take exception to the bad-faith suggestion that some of the oppose !votes are merely anti-Andy. I am personally troubled that using a slur like "Jew-tagging trolls", regardless of supposed context, is merely brushed aside and the victim of the slur is then attacked. It's pretty shocking and points to some systemic issues on Wikipedia. And for such a draconian measure -- up to 5 possible choices that could lead to various bannings -- to be determined by a simple 50%+1 vote is equally troubling. I always thought that Wikipedia was not a democracy and it was a matter of argument and not numbers of votes, thus the !vote designation. freshacconci talk to me 19:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Really, Debresser? I should have listed User:Viriditas? I couldn't find anybody else besides him explicitly opposing such a ban in the thread above. If you can, I hope you'll list them here. Actually, it seems natural to me that with the one exception, the people likely to be against a ban didn't say so in so many words, in the kind of discussion taking place above — not even you, Debresser, not even Bus stop as far as I can see. That was one of the reasons I created this section, for more focused attention to the question of a ban, so that those against might post explicit opposes, so that consensus about a ban might be sought. (I also assumed that Viriditas would post in this section, as indeed he has. Do you feel ignored by the way I opened this section, Viriditas?)

By the way, I have my own procedural note: Somebody has removed option 5 above, which was added by Guy Macon here. Excuse me for bolding, but that one I think is important. Guy put a note about his option here; that's still there on the page. I can't where the removal happened in the history, ANI history being what it is, but it wasn't Guy. Several people have addressed option 5. It seems destructive to silently remove it. Please, at a minimum, add a signed note about why. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC).

It was removed in this edit.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ponyo. I have written to NE Ent about it. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC).

• Oppose Not only isn't this the proper forum, but there is no evidence provided here of an issue with Bus stop, though there is ample evidence of User:AndyTheGrump using thinly veiled racist language. I'm sure that there are other examples of compound / hyphenated terms using the word "Jew", but "Jew-lover", "Jew-hater" and "Jew-baiting" come to mind. None of these use the word "Jew" in a vaguely neutral connotation, and the provocative nature of the term AndyTheGrump has manufactured is unmistakable. Imagine if Bus stop had been categorizing articles for people as LGBT or African American based on reliable sources, and substitute for "Jew" the equivalent offensive slur for sexual preference / race in the term "Jew-tagging" that AndyTheGrump has used repeatedly without compunction. If wanting to stand up to AndyTheGrump for his persistent use of thinly disguised racist rhetoric marks me as having an "anti-Andy agenda", then so be it. Alansohn (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Is Alansohn to be allowed to continue to make these vile and entirely unfounded personal attacks on my integrity without sanction? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Applying buckets of AGF, it cannot be the case that Alansohn is attacking Andy with ridiculous claims that have been rejected by a significant number of editors who have cared to comment on the side issue, therefore, Alansohn fails WP:CIR and should be restricted from offering opinions on other editors, particularly Andy. There is ample evidence that Alansohn has zero understanding of the issues in this case, and it is particularly offensive to pull the "racist" card in an attempt to knock out Andy who has simply been trying to get Bus stop to engage in a discussion about what WP:BLPCAT means. Bus stop has chosen the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response, nicely coupled with WP:CPUSH to push-push-push a point of view contrary to policy. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Options #2 and #3. BMK (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Now that I've read the mysteriously removed Option 5: Bus stop is topic banned from all pages related to Judaism., I support it as well. BMK (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Proposal. I propose that this disgusting thread be closed as inappropriate and that AndyTheGrump be requested to offer a real apology for using an inappropriate term in a collaborative and collegial setting. In academia, and I'm certain in other Real World settings, Andy's language would have not been tolerated, and he would have been sanctioned in some fashion in an academic institution. Bus stop's "crime" (i.e. annoying some people) would have earned a stern warning at best. I say close this now and we all move on. (I'll be holding my breath over here). freshacconci talk to me 19:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• I say you don't have a leg to stand on, given the actual evidence and opinions offered by many many people above, but I'll not be holding my breath for you to notice, either. --Calton | Talk 22:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support #3, at minimum. Plenty of evidence in this very thread for such a measure -- and Bus stop's attempts at FUD notwithstanding, the links are here to easily go and check his behavior on the various Talk/Noticeboard pages. And while we're at it, 1) an official warning (at minimum) or block for User:Alansohn's reprehensible attempt at stifling commentary by invoking anti-semiticism; 2) User:Anythingyouwant, that axe you have is nice and shiny, but maybe you should go grind it somewhere else. --Calton | Talk 22:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose all per Shii, Nyttend and Someone not using his real name in the discussion above.Tristan noir (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support #5 ("Bus stop is topic banned from all pages related to Judaism") preferred, but any of the options will help. I understand others' objections that insufficient evidence of disruption has been adduced here, but I've seen plenty in the past, and the current situation indicates nothing has changed. I gave bus stop the benefit of the doubt last time, but he still doesn't appear to grasp "Jew" does not adequately capture the distinctions between "of the Jewish faith", "observant", "ethnically Jewish", "of Jewish heritage", "mother is Jewish". This editor lacks the subtlety needed for work in this area.

And would someone please block User:Alansohn for the duration of this discussion, at least, and permanently ban them if they repeat that "antisemitic" claim again? Andy's complaint was not an antisemitic rant. You have misunderstood, Alansohn. Andy is not an anti-semite, nor any other kind of bigot. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Bus Stop is sometimes right and sometimes wrong on substance of these issues. I do not see the recent conduct rising to the level where a topic ban is called for. Andy is often right on the substance of the issues but his rhetorical flourishes such as "clueless Jew-tagging troll" are really excessive. I've got a thick skin and am not easily offended, but as a Jew, I find this language pretty darned offensive. In all honesty, it hurts my feelings to read such things even though I am not the target of the attack. I will not conclude that this terminology is anti-Semitic but I will say that it is deeply, profoundly insensitive and hurtful to many readers, not just the specific editor it is directed toward. I've studied the subject of Jewish identity for many years though I don't edit Jewish topics all that much. It is an area of great complexity that defies easy pigeonholing one way or the other. It should be approached with great sensitivity, but sometimes us Wikipedians don't do such a good job with sensitivity, do we? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 3 or 5 for the very reasons outlined by Cullen: I didn't keep statistics, but being "sometimes right and sometimes wrong" on the issue, and then 1) refusing to accept that he was wrong 2) arguing his case to death with massive WP:IDHT, BLP violations and 3) apparent obsession with the subject are more than enough reasons for the topic ban. I've perused only Talk:Ed_Miliband/Archive_1#The_infobox_problem, and Bus Stop's behavior really turned my stomach. Not sure if he's trolling or lacks competence, but if he cannot drop the stick after being presented a quoted Miliband's statement "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense., then I don't know what else could work. No such user (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the comment immediately preceding that remark should also be included
...and Mr Miliband confirmed for the first time that he is an atheist
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 3 or 5 A topic ban is necessary in light of Bus Stop's persistent refusal to accept that, per BLP, we go by the self-identification of the subject for matters of personal identity such as religion. On the evidence available, 4 is too broad, per Andy. 1 and 2 would not prevent the interminable talk page discussions, which are perhaps the most problematic things as they, predictably, tend to get somewhat heated since Bus Stop exhibits chronic IDIDNTHEARTHAT and refusal to accept consensus. When people are confronted by patently specious arguments such as that they don't apply the same standards to other religions (e.g. "use of Christian") they tend to lose patience. It is pretty hard to accept that someone in good faith fails to realise that "Christian" is not an ethnicity and is therefore not ambiguous as "Jewish" is, so it's not surprising that they get called a "troll". Neljack (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Any and all, as per all of the above. The tenor of this discussion belies the underlying biased editing and POV-pushing problems endemic to the topic area, and the pushers rarely get checked here. The amount of time and effort wasted on quelling such tendentiousness is counterproductive, to say the least. And comments like "Religion-hating crowd" and the accusations (veiled or otherwise) of antisemitism are beyond counterproductive.
  

I have my doubts about the arbitrary use of indefinite bans, however, for a first "conviction", so to speak. I think it would probably be better to assign a period, such as a year, and then see how the editor edits upon return to the topic area before imposing an indefinite ban.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:21, 23:29 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm re-adding Option 5, as several people have voted for it, and it was removed without any discussion. Please do not remove it again, as several editors have expressed support for it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Please see talk page discussion. NE Ent 09:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Stop it. All you've done now is make a potentially confusing situation look even worse, by moving the option into a really, really stupid place - one where most people will miss it. Particularly as most of the "support all" votes above your mess indicate that they would support any kind of sanction in this area. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support option 3. The others seem either too oblique or too broad for the problem. I can speak only for Bus stop's behavior in the Belfort article and his many discussions in the past at BLPN, but his comments are like a mantra, endlessly echoing the same theme in a doggedly civil manner (sometimes I'd rather he were less civil, frankly). As for Andy, although it's not the subject of this proposal, I pretty much agree with Drmies. Andy's manner can be obnoxious. He's also usually right substantively. And we all know how we treat incivility in general at ANI and, in particular, incivility from good editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• support all, I think a broader topic ban would cover things sufficiently. Pass a Method talk 13:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Insufficient evidence presented in the form of diffs to merit any of the proposed outcomes. This is actually a good matter for ArbCom, I hesitate to say. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Short incivility block for User:AndyTheGrump

Not going to happen. BencherliteTalk 23:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Per the statements in the discussion above: Debresser: "AndyTheGrump should be blocked or voluntarily refrain from editing for a week for making such comments." Guy Macon: "I suggest a slowly escalating series for blocks for Andy." (This was out of context.) Anythingyouwant: "Support any type of block or ban at all against User:AndyTheGrump." Johnuniq: "The behavior we are discussing is wholly gratuitous and is unacceptable." I suggest that User:AndyTheGrump be blocked symbolically for 24 hours, with further blocks if incivility continues. There seems to be a broad consensus for this already. Shii (tock) 19:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Emphatically support, and lengthen the block if there is consensus for doing so. At the BLPN discussion, Andy called User:Bus stop “a complete imbecile or a clueless Jew-tagging troll with OCD” (Obsessive–compulsive disorder, a psychological disorder). Also called him, “someone who wishes for Wikipedia to publish lies.” Tagging Jews is common parlance for what the Nazis and other antisemites have done: “Nazis were boycotting and tagging Jews in Germany, persecution that was maybe not well—known in the rest of America but was talked about in Brooklyn.”[179][180][181] Andy has rejected criticism about these connotations, calling such criticism "vile and entirely unfounded". In any event, even putting aside the antisemitic connotations, the incivility warrants a block, especially as a culmination of years of same.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose as this would be the epitome of a punitive block, which we do not do around here. The allegations of antisemitism here are becoming troubling as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if this rhetoric is sanctionable under WP:ARBPIATarc (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Wrong. The object is to curb the grossest form of incivility. And note well: I have never accused AndytheGrump of antisemitism, but rather of using language (intentionally or unintentionally) that connotes another editor is antisemitic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Um, why would I be trying to suggest that Bus Stop is an antisemite? He self-identifies as Jewish... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I didn't say what you were trying to do, as I cannot read your mind, but what you did do was spew a lot of hateful insults. (Generally speaking, the loyalty of Benedict Arnold to the United States was widely questioned even though he was an American general.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Um, who are you comparing to Benedict Arnold? You've lost me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Feel free to ignore the parenthetical if you don't understand it. It's just a parenthetical after all. And now, I must take my leave for awhile. I wish that everyone did not have to endure this mess, but it seems very important to get it right.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Um, this entry is my opinion as to whether or not there should be a block. You may disagree, even vehemently if you wish, but please do not call one's opinion "wrong". That is condescending and rather snotty. Tarc (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Instead of calling me "snotty", how about explaining why a block would do nothing to deter future transgressions? I believe you are wrong to say such a block would be punitive. It would deter future transgressions. Gotta run now. Looking forward to your reply, Tarc, hopefully without more insults.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC) There were no insults, your knowledge of how blocks work and what they are for is simply...lacking. To block a user for an incivility that happened days ago would be punitive. Your words, "deter future transgressions", are the very definition of what a punitive block would actually be. We don't do those, hence my opposition. You can't just twist the English language into what you want it to be, i.e. calling a clearly punitive block a preventative one. Apples aren't oranges. Tarc (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Nope. Per WP:Block, a block is "meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption and inappropriate conduct, and to deter any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conduct" (my emphasis).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Your emphasis is misplaced, your analysis is uninformed, and your overall attitude here borders on the irrationally personal & hostile. This project rarely blocks regulars for civility transgressions (or in the rare time that they are, they are always unblocked shortly thereafter) when they actually happen; they are certainly never blocked days after the fact when the matter is long past. You can wiki-lawyer the verbiage at wp:block there to your heart's content, but it will not be used in the way that you wish it to be used, as evidenced by the mountain of opposes piled against you below. A block now would not prevent a thing, that is just the way it works here. Tarc (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Please excuse me for misunderstanding "the way it works here". I envy you "regulars" for being able to say whatever you want, including that I am irrational and hostile. I will now go and try to deal with my irrationality and hostility. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Support symbolic block. Normally, I'm opposed to these sorts of tit-for-tat proposals that usually escalate the situation. Case-in-point, the response to Bus stop's initial complaint being a proposed topic-ban against Bus stop. However, in this case, Andy's comment goes way over the line. A genuine apology would suffice in my book, but I'd have to be assured that he understands why the comment is inappropriate. freshacconci talk to me 19:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose, and object to being quoted out of context. The top of this section quotes me as saying "I suggest a slowly escalating series for blocks for Andy." but what I actually wrote was "Because of the above, I suggest a slowly escalating series for blocks for Andy. First a warning so he knows what is going to happen, then one day, then two days, three days, etc." I do not support a block for what has been presented here. I support it for future (and more clear-cut) incivility after Andy is warned that he has to stop doing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I apologize for quoting you out of context. I had to read through the conversation twice and unhappily missed the context of your comment the second time. Shii (tock) 22:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose. Grossly contrary to blocking policy, and unjustified by behavior. And the comment by User:Johnuniq, listed above, was a characterization of Bus stop's behavior, not Andy's, indicating at beat that the OP here does not properly understand at least some aspects of the debate -- if not worse, given the inappropriately selective quote mentioned above. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Hullaballoo, doesn't the blocking policy allow blocks for gross and habitual incivility? Also, maybe I missed it, but User:Johnuniq cited no diffs of problematic editing by Bus stop, right? I entirely agree with Johnuniq that Wikipedia's categorizing by ethnicity/culture/religion is problematic, but current policies and guidelines allow it. If it's a religious categorization then it requires self-identification, but not if it's only an ethnic categorization; that's what the current Wikipedia policies and guidelines say. Bus stop may (or may not) have argued for changing those policies and guidelines, but did he violate them???? And how does any of that excuse the quoted rubbish from AndytheGrump?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC) You're being purposefully obtuse. Blocking policy does not allow "symbolic blocks". Johnuniq did not cited individual diffs, but condemn Bus stop's already well-documented overall course of conduct, saying ""Support topic ban to prevent Bus stop continuing their campaign to tag every possible page with 'X is Jewish'". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I don't agree that it is "obtuse" for me to ask for a diff or some kind of link to the "course of conduct" (by Bus stop) that you think should be condemned. Also, I don't see that WP:Block uses the word "symbolic"; it does say that blocks can escalate, and so the first block in an escalating series seems rather symbolic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Support a short incivility block of a few weeks to start and be prepared to escalate from there. Read this article for some background on the use of "Jew" as a pejorative. You might be able in some contexts to say someone "is a Jew" and get away with it, but when you use "Jew" as an adjective in "Jew-tagging" you cross a line into Jew-baiting. User:AndyTheGrump has repeatedly emphasized that he was trying to provoke Bus stop into filing an ANI and the use of rather clear racist code words appears to be part of his incitement. Take a look at how we at Wikipedia define this issue at Jew (word)#Antisemitism "The word Jew has been used often enough in a disparaging manner by antisemites that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it was frequently avoided altogether, and the term Hebrew was substituted instead (e.g. Young Men's Hebrew Association). Even today some people are wary of its use, and prefer to use "Jewish". Indeed, when used as an adjective (e.g. "Jew lawyer") or verb (e.g. "to jew someone"), the term Jew is purely pejorative." The lack of any awareness of the issue on the part of User:AndyTheGrump of his repeated use of his manufactured term "Jew-tagging", using the adjectival form of the word "Jew" in a clearly pejorative manner, only compounds the issue; He certainly didn't mean to call Bus stop a "clueless Jew-tagging troll" in a good way, but rather as the very definition of a WP:NPA violation. A block might end this continuing abuse and finally get his attention. Alansohn (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Given the weasel-worded excuses that Alansohn is currently posting on his talk page for a gross personal attack on me he clearly regrets making,[182] I think his comments here need to be taken with a pinch of salt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Your repeated use of racist code words and your refusal to acknowledge -- and apologize for -- your shameless use of "clueless Jew-tagging troll" as a religion-based personal attack only further demonstrates that you are the problem here. Alansohn (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Your continued accusations of racism and antisemitism, even as you attempt to deny making such accusations, further demonstrate your gross hypocrisy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC) FYI: There is a short discussion of Alansohn's attack on Andy on my talkpage. Apparently he's still talking about Andy's "religion-based personal attack", and my opinion is still that he should be blocked for his baseless IDHT charges of antisemitism. Bishonen | talk 22:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC). Oppose Huh? What is a "symbolic" incivility block? Either you block, or you don't. Epicgenius (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose What the hell does it mean to be "blocked symbolically"? There is nothing in the blocking policy which supports "symbolic" blocks, and the quotes cherry-picked by Shii supporting a block have been misrepresented. Andy has vehemently denied the comments were meant to be antisemitic and has explained that the comment was made in relation to Bus stop's propensity for tagging (i.e. adding a specific category) BLP subjects as Jewish regardless as to whether there is consensus for the inclusion of the category, or whether policy supports the categorization. Continuing to insist Andy meant otherwise when they outright deny it, and there is a very plausible alternate explanation is an untenable position because you cannot prove another individual's intent. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose As others have noted blocks are preventative not punitive. MarnetteD | Talk 21:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose per all my my comments above. I'm nonplussed that Shii can see "broad consensus for this already". Bishonen | talk 21:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC). Oppose unless Alanshon is blocked as well for his series of escalating accusations. Also, I suggest an interaction ban be imposed on the two of them if this keeps up. Gamaliel (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose - no evidence of this being anything other than punitive. Alonsohn has, yet again, allowed their dislike of Andy to overtake common sense, and so has Anythingyouwant. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose As above, not to mention the fact that Andy committed no incivility that I can see.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Wow Shii (tock) 22:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose - A "symbolic" block is a punitive block. BMK (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose in the strongest possible terms. It is utterly outrageous to suggest that Andy's behaviour is in any way antisemitic. His entire course of behaviour here has been to counter the gratuitous tagging of people as Jews. The term "Jew-tagging" is no more antisemitic than "Jew-baiting" or "Jew-hunting", and was entirely appropriate as a description of Bus Stop's behaviour. I repeated the term in one of my edits above, and if Andy is to be sanctioned for the use of this term then, in the interests of even-handedness I too must be sanctioned. Therefore I demand that I too receive the same "symbolic incivility block". RolandR (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose. User:Anythingyouwant, that axe you're holding is nice and shiny, but maybe you should go grind it somewhere else. --Calton | Talk 22:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• In response to the pings in the correctly collapsed section above, naturally I was referring to Bus stop when I said "The behavior we are discussing is wholly gratuitous and is unacceptable". The fact that someone has cherry picked bits of text including my comment to support a view they favor is regrettable, but is typical of the misunderstandings seen in the entire thread. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A sincere apology with hopes of getting on a solid footing (eventually) of providing non-contentious and productive input to our project

NOTICE: In the face of so much opposition, I offer my sincere apologies to everyone for any unintended words, my intention is only to help Wikipedia and I have the highest regard and respect for all of my fellow editors. For the foreseeable future I have made the decision to voluntarily stay away from the topics that have caused contention and will limit myself to WP:NPOV editing since there is so much else to do on WP. It pains me to see so much discord and it is a waste of everybody's time, so therefore I wish everyone all the very best and I look forward to harmonious relationships with everyone. Bus stop (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that apology, I can only respond by too offering my apologies for any offence that may have been caused by what with hindsight were evidently ill-chosen words. I'll make no apologies for my defence of Wikipedia policy, and for what I sincerely believe is the best interests of both the Wikipedia readership and the subjects of our articles, and have no intention of ceasing such endeavours - I will however attempt to use more temperate language in doing so, if only because a reasoned argument is likely to be more productive than another of my ill-considered outbursts. And for the record, I would like to make it clear that I was sincere in my earlier post regarding proposed blocking options when I suggested that Bus Stop's art-related edits seemed to me to be a positive contribution to Wikipedia. I hope he will continue in this, and will find the harmony he seeks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 31 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.

Problematic editor: User:KazekageTR

The editor KazekageTR is apparently in a feud with me in the Turkey article and constantly engages in edit wars, including the removal of textual/factual content which I am adding. His/her primary contribution to the article is "engaging in a fight for arbitrarily and forcefully changing the pictures" and nothing more. He/she merely "copy-pastes" these pictures (including their caption text) from other articles (like Economy of Turkey, Culture of Turkey, etc), without even writing the captions himself/herself. Lord of Rivendell (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Does anyone know if one file on Wikipedia can only be used in a single article? I didn't see anything prohibiting this in WP:CMF, but I want to be sure. Anyway, normally I would suggest listing this situation at WP:3, but this edit summary is a tad suspicious..."you can't just revert our edits"? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I have rights to do edits just like you and he is reverting our edits cause he dosent like them. By the way in my lastest edits, I didin't add anything i've just made some rearrengements thats all. And i dont see a rule that prohibits me from copy pasting pictures(including their caption). By the way I am naming you as the Problematic Error from now on, as you didint said anything to me before you put this section here! KazekageTR (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You're naming whom the problematic error (or did you mean "editor"?), me or LoR? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

KazekageTR has a point, you're supposed to discuss any issues with the editor first before running here. ANI should be the last resort after discussion has failed. As it stands, there has been no discussion on either of your talk pages nor on the article talk page. Technically, both of you could be blocked for edit warring, something which I see Lord of Rivendell was blocked for back in December. If you can't hash it out on article talk, go to WP:DRN. Blackmane (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way it was LoR, Erpert. KazekageTR (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Whatzinaname content removal at Media bias in the United States, refusal to engage in discussion, vows to see content removed

Could use an admin's attention over at Talk:Media bias in the United States#most of the conservative bias section should be removed. Whatzinaname started the talk page thread saying a whole section was wrong and needed to be removed. Other users and I engaged him in discussion, asking him for specifics. He repeatedly refused e.g. "YOU be specific. I'm not paid to connect invisible dots or prove negatives, nor am I paid to deal with your inability to comprehend such". He blanked the section on 1/10, I reverted, another non-discussion took place in the same talk page section, and I thought we were done with it. He came back today, blanked it again, and posted this on the discussion page "like I said, the section is gone until someone can actual come with something encyclopedic/factual to include." Doesn't seem to indicate any signs of letting it go or commencing productive discussion. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  05:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

For a month, Whatzinaname has been acting in a high-handed fashion here, asserting that serious problems exist and removing content without engaging in discussion about the specifics or suggesting alternatives. The most recent comment, "like I said, the section is gone until someone can actual come with something encyclopedic/factual to include" indicates a commitment to remove content unless other editors comply with and accept the editor's own POV. All that being said, this seems to be a primarily a content dispute, and perhaps a simple reminder directed to Whatzinaname that this is a collaborative project based on respectful interaction and consensus might help things. Or maybe not. Let's see how it goes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

it's not a question of POV. it's a POF point of fact that the information being removed does not establish any kind of conservative bias. not a shred. as an editor here my job is to clean this place up, not make excuses for why it's a mess. If that's too "high handed" for you, tough luck. Whatzinaname (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "blank a section" at any point. I removed a bunch of irrelevant information from the section after having exhausted the talk page of any idea on what was salvageable. You nor anyone else could provide a single thing in that entire section that was salvageable that established any appearance of bias, as I asked you to do multiple times. Now you are crying foul because I'm doing my duty as an editor here and removing what is clearly not what the section is supposed to be about. As I also said in the talk you can move much of it into its own "corporate" bias section, but it can't remain in the current section Whatzinaname (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess, maybe not. Here is an aggressive, non-collaborative attitude on display for all to see, insisting without consensus that something "can't remain". Of course, the article can be improved, through collaborative editing as opposed to a combative attitude. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The section of that article doesn't really look bad to me (the authors subsection could stand a few more sources though), but seriously, Whatzinaname, people are calmly asking you what's wrong with the article, and all you're doing is responding combatively. You said "as an editor here, [your] job is to clean this place up"...well, that's all our jobs. As Cullen and other editors have said, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and you seem to be behaving as though you own that article. That's not how things work around here. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

well, if doesn't look that bad to you, feel free to post in the talk page specifically what you feel establishes any kind of evidence of a conservative bias in the media. This is starting to be like an abbot and Costello routine and I tire of my time being wasted on it.Whatzinaname (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't look like this user's attitude is anything new, which is unfortunate because this editor's agenda here is to give us lowly mortals WP:THETRUTH. But unfortunately, if the reverts continue without discussion and in a battleground fashion, he likely won't be in a position to teach us of his higher ways and we'll all be worse off for it. N^oformation ^Talk 10:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"discussions" have already occurred, and since no one could establish the relevance of the material in the specific section in question as requested multiple times in talk, it has been removed. 2+2 does not equal 5, even if if you add it to a wiki-page. So sorry, mon ami. 11:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not something that any one editor decides. If you think discussion on the talk page has exhausted its usefulness then you must follow the guidelines described in WP:DR, such as calling for wider community input via an WP:RFC, or filing a dispute resolution request at WP:DRN. If you're not willing to do that then you'll have to leave the article for others to handle. Repeatedly reverting the material will not achieve your desired results. N^oformation ^Talk 11:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• It' worth pointing out that this isn't new behavior for Whatzinaname. Some months ago he wasted an enormous amount of editor time at Malcolm X. He opened with, "The lede is rife with issues that need quality sourcing. haven't even bothered to look at the rest of the article, but the lede is atrocious by any standard. How the hell this absolute trash of an article got FA is astonishing", then started ringing the changes.:

• No source supports that
• OK, but those sources aren't reliable
• OK, they're reliable, but they don't say that
• OK, they do say that but it shouldn't be in the article
• OK, it should be in the article, but with less emphasis
• OK, I'm out of arguments but I'll tell you now I'll just keep reverting until I get my way

Typical passages:

• Talk:Malcolm X/Archive 7#too_bad:

• Other editor (me, actually): But your other concerns have been unanimously rejected by other editors.
• Whatzinaname: That's too bad because it's not staying the way it is.

• Talk:Malcolm X/Archive 7#every_day:

• Other editor (me again): With two or three more endorsements consensus will be unanimous [and if Whatzinaname keeps this up he's likely to get blocked]
• Whatzinaname: LOL. Nice threats. I'll come back and revert it every damn day if its against wikipedia guidelines, which this perverse mixture of rumor-mongering and cherry picking information clearly is. You can take your fairy tale narrative of MX's life to the internet message boards you haunt. Just keep it out of Wikipedia

EEng (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

that's absolutely hilarious you would post this in here. You might actually find an admin who gives a damn and they might actually take note of your behavior on that wiki, and you might find yourself perma-blocked, like you should have been banned a looooooooong time ago. 08:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzinaname (talk • contribs)

Pehaps, perhaps not, but not hilarious is that you took my post as a prompt to resume exactly the behavior complained of above, newing your unintelligible complaints about the Malcolm X article by opening a new thread there called Talk:Malcolm X#fairy_tale_narratives_don't_belong_on_wikipedia. EEng (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Truth777333 -- Disruptive Problematic Editor

User:Truth777333 is currently being a disruptive, POV Pushing, problematic, and an OR editor to the Moors article.

He has made tons of disruptive tendentious POV OR edits to the page over the past day and has been reverted multiple times by me and other editors for his editorial.

Here are all his edits under the name User:Truth777333:

#1 #2 #3 -- as you can see I explain my reason for reversion in the same 3rd diff] #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 (he made an edit under an IP this time for #8) #9 (as you can see he got reverted by User:SQGibbon in the same diff for #9.) #10 #11 and as you can see in the last diff (#11) he gets reverted by User:Stephenb

After explaining my reason for reversion (the first time) he comes to my talk page and says this on it which is basically 'I am black and of Moorish descent and your reversions are racist and excluding my culture and I'll file a lawsuit'. Yes, he really threatened the possible use of a lawsuit for reverting him which was following WP guidelines, and I think it's quite clear with that post he has a POV. So basically he has been reverted various times by me and other editors. There has obviously been valid elucidation for these reverts as I've told him my reason for reverting multiple times, yet he still continues to make the same tendentious disruptive POV OR edits to the Moors page and does not even attempt to build consensus too. ShawntheGod (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The adage that "any editor with Truth in their username will generally have a very slanted POV" still holds true. Time for the NLT indef block. Blackmane (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

BlackMane: Your assumption about the name "Truth" in my name is a strategy that you are trying to employ to have be blocked. Is this even valid? Who is responsible for blocking individuals. I assume their has to be a policy that governs this and assumptions about their choice of username is most likely not apart of this criterion.

I believe he just made a thread about me with the title "ShawntheGod is being disruptive , racist, and exclusive of objective verifiable scientific evidence". Actually, that's his thread, no doubt. ShawntheGod (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned, I should say that my revert was based on (a) the information was being added in the wrong place - I've no problem with the article having something on the ethnicity of Moors, though not right up there in the lede and providing it is well-referenced, and (b) the assertion that there has been "much controversy" based on a single reference (which seems to be a large block quote from a book, and does not directly support any "controversy") seemed dubious and a POV. Stephenb (Talk) 11:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Stephenb: If this wasn't a "controversial " issue then why am I getting so much push back from participants on this forum. That is paarticularly why I chose to use the word "controversial."

Hello. I'm not claiming the issue isn't controversial either, it may well be. But I don't think the quote you that added supported that - when a claim about controversy is added to a Wikipedia article, it should ideally be accompanied by references that support the claim that there is such a controversy. Whether your edit itself is controversial, for different reasons, on Wikipedia is incidental to this. Cheers, Stephenb (Talk) 08:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I don't wanna make a new thread so I just decided to make this post. It seems that we're dealing with another disruptive tendentious editor on the Moors page. Just check the history here and this time the editor goes by the name Get.a.life and has been reverted 7 times over the past couple hours. He does not attempt to build consensus either, but instead just keeps trying to incorporate his major change into the article again and again. ShawntheGod (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:78.31.37.43 - Orthodox Presbyterian Church - persistant edit warring, using edits as a talk page

[183] These two sections of the page are unsourced, the one source provided is a picture with no explanation of content at the source that relates to the paragraphs.

The IP address listed has repeatedly added these sections to the article over the last week and has shown no inclination, despite requests, to discuss it on the talk page. I didn't want to get into an edit war so I brought it here, not sure if that's the correct next step or not. SPACKlick (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

He is WP:SPA. I am on the page now. Noteswork (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This is simply not true. I have created the best sourced section in the entire article. SPACKlick has consistently deleted sections for no good reason, has started an unnecessary edit war, and vandalized the article. He has a long history of this with other articles. This section is written from a NPV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm the current coordinator at DRN. I've just rejected a request in regard to this article because it asked for things that DRN does not do (and it would have also been rejected because of this pending ANI listing, but I didn't know this was here until after I closed it). What we have is an IP editor repeated adding mostly unsourced and original research material regarding the racial and LGBT positions and makeup of this denomination over the objection of other editors. Since this request was made here at ANI, a small team of editors has formed to revert the edits by the IP editor, but what's really needed is about a month of semi-protection to stop the current EW. We can then see if additional action is needed if the IP decides to continue to grind the axe by registering an account or coming back after the protection expires. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Semiprotection of the article for the time being. Admiral Caius (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

He got a 3-hour block starting at 17:33, 30 January 2014. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There have been new IP editors piling in and an EW over tagging. I've asked for indef pending changes temp semi at RPP. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Request changed to semi. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency sock/meatpuppets at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldcoin

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.

---

Came across this AfD yesterday. Several blatant WP: MEATpuppets are casting !votes due to a reddit thread here. I struck out the meapuppet !votes, but Argyle mistook my edit as vandalism and reverted my striking. Semiprotection would be helpful at this point as meatpuppet accounts continue to skew discussion. Admiral Caius (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The relevant SPI is here.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:52, 31 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:Golden Prime

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.

---

Golden Prime (talk · contribs)

Tiger versus lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A single-purpose account with a bee in his bonnet about our Tiger versus lion article. Already blocked twice since the 20th of January [184] for edit-warring over the article, and is now doing exactly the same thing once more. Given the combination of dismally-poor skills in the English language, a complete inability to comprehend Wikipedia policy, and a habit of making personal attacks on anyone who points out problems (see this discussion [185] at WP:RSN for the latest example), it seems to me that an indefinite block per WP:COMPETENCE and/or WP:NOTHERE is a foregone conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly; there is no capacity for Golden Prime (talk · contribs) to add constructively to the project. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Indef block. Major competence issues here. MercenaryHoplite (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support SPA indeed. Indef block. Noteswork (talk) 13:20, 31 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 108.48.144.42

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

Hi all. I'm coming here instead of AIV because occasionally AIV doesn't act on these sorts of matters if there is too much detail, and I have too much detail. IP 108.48.144.42 has been persistently disruptive. User has been warned numerous times to not submit unsourced content, to adhere to a neutral point of view, and to avoid other disruptive behavior. User keeps blanking their talk page, ostensibly to avoid scrutiny, but they have been persistently disruptive since they began editing around September 2013.

In their edits yesterday, the user removed legitimate infobox templates and other date formatting, then introduced unsourced speculation as to the subject's cause of death, "either tuberculous or pneumonia". For this, and for their prior deleted warnings, I left a L4 Uw on the editors page, and pointed out that removing warnings from their talk page is considered proof that they have read the notices.

In the user's edit today, they removed a "circa (c.)" from the infobox with no explanation, then added a personal expression of "sadly dies", then claimed that Pocahontas died at the (unsourced) age of 22.

IP editor has previously been brought to the attention of AN/I, along with another possible sock IP (108.10.240.190), but it doesn't appear that anything was done about either. I respectfully request administrative intervention to prevent the IP from damaging articles further. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I am a bit dumbfounded on how this was overlooked, another editor had this to say January 3rd in addition: "108.48.144.42 is also one of several IPs being used to add unsourced ages for fictional characters in a range of youth media articles.[186][187][188][189][190][191] The editor seems to have just started using 108.10.240.190.[192][193]" So not only is the Ip disruptive but it appears to be a hopper. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I am that other editor. While the random-ish unsourced ages seem to have stopped, they transformed into a series of rather odd POV edits with occasional removal of sources (example). Now the editor seems to be on a modifier kick. "Magical power" isn't enough, it must be "immense magical power" (to compare to other powers that are "almighty" or "historical"[194] or, perhaps, "mighty and powerful".[195] Hair is "waist-length curly, bushy, and bright fiery orange mane of hair" and why have a "slender body" when you can have a "slender, slim body"?[196] There's also an assortment of unsourced material[197], trivia[198], guesswork[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sofia_the_First&diff=prev&oldid=592726843, etc. Talk requests are blanked and seemingly ignored. In short, I think we have an enthusiastic young editor who really has very little understanding of what we are trying to do here. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• EdJohnston has righteously and correctly warned: these edits are really disruptive. Though I also wonder what SummerPhD looks like with her long, ebony hair up in a bun. Or words to that effect. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC

Ed tu, Doc? (To be fair, most of my fans wonder the same thing, though my hair tends toward the shorter ivory variety anymore.) - SummerPhD (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The IP seems to have brushed this off as looking at their edit history the IP has continued to make unexplained edits. While this is not always a bad thing it does raise a red flag on how they will not come here and reply to these complaints. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• My warning was, 'If you continue as before and won't explain your edits you may be blocked.' Since they removed the ANI warning, cleared their talk page and kept on going, including this unexplained removal of a reference, I've blocked for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Okay and thank you for your help in trying to solve things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Uncooperative editor at Open Europe

I've been trying to make some changes to article Open Europe. However, another editor, who I'm quite convinced has been using a number of accounts, and possibly IP addresses: (Doug4EU2010; Baskaville; Gallego2012; Berliner1970; Gerald1000; CharlieG2000; EUcurrentaffairs; Sullivan241; Barossoisacooldude) has been unwilling to discuss and reflexively reverts changes. (There are a few more accounts, but those are the main ones. They all are new accounts, that edit exclusively on Open Europe, and have exactly the same style and viewpoint.) I think also a series of IP addresses starting with 93.186, but I'm not sure. I don't have a problem particularly with the multiple accounts, although it does make it hard to communicate, and be sure that the counterpart has heard.

The problem is that we've had disagreements about wording, and I've tried to engage in talk, multiple times (for example:[199], [200], [201]) , but the editor refuses to engage and simply reverts my edits([202], [203], [204], [205] for example).

Bascally it boils down to the past few days, I've tried to assume good faith, post messages on talk and wait for engagement. Nothing forthcoming, I edit the article, and it is then immediately reverted with no further discussion. I'm not sure what can be done, but some sort of semi-protection + warning to one of users would seem suitable now. Thanks for any advice or help you can offer. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, User:Baskaville edited my user page and added personal details without permission: [206], so although they stopped when I asked, their commitment to civil, on topic discourse is rather in doubt. Nonetheless I have tried to assume good faith. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

<not a mod> The actions of IP's and User:Baskaville on Peregrine981's userpage strongly suggest WP:NOTHERE. Kleuske (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've rangeblocked the IPs. I'll leave discussion of the account to others. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Baskaville (talk · contribs), Chris19231 (talk · contribs), Gallego2012 (talk · contribs), Berliner1970 (talk · contribs), CharlieG2000 (talk · contribs), WolfgangS451 (talk · contribs), EUcurrentaffairs (talk · contribs), Sullivan241 (talk · contribs), Ayresmith (talk · contribs), Gasmonitor (talk · contribs) and Barossoisacooldude (talk · contribs) for using multiple accounts to exert influence over Open Europe. Doug4EU2010 and Gerald1000 were not checked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Chovgan

I tried to make an edit at Chovgan and was reverted by Az-507. I requested on the article talk page that he discuss the matter with me, Talk:Chovgan#Request for discussion, and left a talkback to that request on his user talk page. He made one answer to me in poor English which didn't make any sense and was unsourced. I answered him back, but he did not write back to me after that. When I hadn't heard from him in some days, I left another talkback. When he still had not responded in many days, I tried the edit again and he reverted me again, still without discussing about it. Basically all his edits have been reverting other people in different articles. I know that I can't get dispute resolution without talk page discussion. What should I do? Isn't continuing to revert my edit without discussing it with me disruptive editing?" --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Slow motion revert warring is still revert warring. Furthermore, their lack of communication and poor english suggest a severe lack of competence to be editing here. Blackmane (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

99.41.173.202 - almost all edits refer to editor's own book of interpretations (not facts)

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

I started a discussion about this at WP:NOR, where it was suggested that I should bring it up here. This is what I wrote there:

It appears that almost every edit made by user 99.41.173.202 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.41.173.202) are references to (or excerpts or summaries from) his own self-published book, which contains his own interpretations of poems. (Either this user is referring to his own book, or the user is interested only in adding citations and summaries from that one book.) In spirit, if not in the letter, these edits seem to be in violation of multiple policies; instead of original research, the editor cites his own interpretations (not facts) from his own book, which comes to the same thing. Could an administrator possibly look into this? Thank you.

Further detail: this user reverted an edit in which I removed a citation to his self-published book. I don't want to start an edit war, so I hope an admin might decide on what to do next.

Just to clarify: what this user has done is add his own interpretations to pages about poems and other literature. The citations for his interpretations are his own book, published by a vanity press (a press that publishes books that the author pays to get published, but which are not subject to peer review), and not noticed or referred to, as far as I can tell, by anyone else. Should these personal interpretations stay in WP? (EDIT: If this doesn't belong here, please say so, and I'll delete the whole section.) - Macspaunday (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This was previously at WP:NORN#99.41.173.202 - almost all edits refer to editor's own book of interpretations (not facts). Since the IP has been warned and has made no further edits since 20 January I don't see the need for immediate action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Let me just state for the record that the title of this section is inaccurate. It should read something like "editor cites unreliable source" or something like that. Literary scholarship is frequently cited to "own interpretations (not facts)" because that's how we roll. It just so happens that this persons interpretations are published by "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" which, despite its name, is basically a kind of gay for pay outfit. No, that's not what I meant--vanity, that's it. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• BTW, this is still all over the place. I just removed it from Ode on a Grecian Urn (Ottava Rima would roll over in his grave if he saw it) and from Adonaïs, and am now cleaning up Frost at Midnight. Word to the wise: you don't touch Frost at Midnight, or I'll sick the secret ministry on you. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • And Thomas Hardy, Easter 1916, In Memoriam A.H.H., The Countess Cathleen, Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came, A slumber did my spirit seal, and The Tyger. Note also the puzzling contributions of PolicyPlease (talk · contribs). Drmies (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Talking about Cambridge Scholars Publishing: I see a whopping 500 hits on wikipedia. You say it is a vanity publisher. (a) Can we have a wikipedia article which says about this (since it is widely cited in wikipedia it must be reasonably notable VaPu) and (b) Shall we do some cleansing beyond your 99.41... IP? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Weeeeell maybe I should put that less strongly, or I'd need a lawyer, maybe. AFAIK the outfit is not widely accepted as a reliable, notable academic press. That goes basically for every publisher that asks you to submit your dissertation, and I've confirmed this with my direct colleagues. I wonder if Randykitty and DGG has more insight to offer. Now, in this case, it's not just that--it's also that the addition were terrifically verbose and typically not encyclopedic in style, to put it briefly. Bad writing, and one of the articles was a GA. And then, it's pretty obvious that this was self-promotion, so plenty of reasons to remove this.

    The word to the wise is of course that it's possible that a book published by CSP is relevant and reliable, but that would have to be decided individually, in a way that with an OUP book you wouldn't have to. In this case, though, with an unknown book that claims to have made huge discoveries (see the Hardy addition) about such a wide range of poems--yeah, no. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

    • They claim on their website:

      We publish around 500 new academic titles a year and have produced numerous editions of collected works of literary figures, including a 56 volume set of the works of Conan-Doyle and a 53 volume set of the works of Anthony Trollope.

      We are proud to be able to claim the contributions to our publications of such figures as HRH The Prince of Wales (The Venice Charter, ISBN 1847186882 and New Architecture and Urbanism, ISBN 1443818698), Former US President Jimmy Carter (Nuclear Proliferation and the Dilemma of Peace, ISBN 1443819174), and the scholar and novelist Umberto Eco (Joyce in Progress, ISBN 1-4438-1235-8).

      The Conan-Doyle and Trollope I assume are public domain.

      500 new title a year seems like awful lot of books - I'm assuming that they're one of these outfits that only prints a title when they get an order for it, so many of their "published" titles could well be published in only a theoretical sense. BMK (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

      • The comments here say that CSP doesn't proof-read, and is a print-on-demand operation. That's not necessarily damning, given the small market for academic books, but they don't seem to be at all selective about wqhat they print, so, as Drmies says, each book would have to be evaluated on its merits and on the qualifications of the author, as the publisher is apparently no gaurantee of quality. BMK (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• The publisher is not hopelessly bad, (and the discussion above confirms my view that we should have articles on all publishers that give the information so people reading WP can judge for themselves). Every publisher has a range of quality: their average seems pretty low, but it doesn't necessarily make any particular book not a RS. They have several interesting niches: really obscure 19th century works by major authors (they have Arthur Conan Doyle's almost unknown travel writings, for example), areas with very small potential interest; they also have many collections of someone's essays, & some pretty weird idiosyncratic books that I cannot imagine anyone publishing unless they got paid for it. But much of humanities publishing these days, even from the best publishers, is subsidized in some manner. As a guide to where they stand, some of the comments seem to equate them with Mellen, but I think Mellen is on the whole a little better, and they don't have Mellesources n's emphasis of the more obscure classical subjects. I would not automatically reject them, but they don't have the same implied authority as OUP and Princeton UP. As another guide, about 1/10 of their books have library holdings in the low hundreds; most have fewer than 100; this will of course be field-dependent, and the more popular third-world studies tend to have the higher numbers. They do often but not always get reviewed. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not really familiar with this outfit, but looking at their website I agree with DGG. They are quite upfront about not being connected to Cambridge University or CUP, a bogus outfit would try to ride those coattails. They don't look like a vanity publisher to me (they don't mention authors having to pay, they do mention them paying royalties to authors) and they claim they peer-review proposals (but there is no indication how stringent this is). I'd take it case by case; If a book they published got decent reviews by reliable I'd use it as a reliable source. Without reviews, I'd be a bit more careful, but I don't think they can be dismissed out of hand. --Randykitty (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• My colleague confirms having seen/heard about representatives going around the conferences soliciting session papers, unseen and unheard, for publication. I've heard enough incidental reports like that to have serious doubts about the outfit. "Vanity"--maybe not according to the technical definition, but uncritical acceptance, sure. We used to get flyers sent to us that were quite unclear about their lack of association with Cambridge U; that was a few years ago, and they may have adjust that particular marketing policy. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Bidhan Singh fourth time adding the same content to Mass media. Hasn't shown an inclination to communicate.

Bidhan Singh has four times introduced nearly identical content to the mass media article, raising numerous problems e.g. changing the first sentence from:

"The mass media are diversified media technologies that are intended to reach a large audience by mass communication."

to

"The mass media are media process that are intended to reach a large audience by mass communication. Public speaking and public event r forms of mass media expression ."

Most recently introducing a source that says almost nothing to produce

"The mass media are media process that are intended to reach a large audience by mass communication.Public speaking and public event can also be considered as forms of mass media The process through which this communication takes place varies <ref>http://www.government.nl/issues/media-and-broadcasting/the-government-and-media/media-act-and-media-policy</ref> ." (nowikis added for the purpose of ANI, of course)

There's no 3RR issue here, but the user has not used the talk page, not responded on his user talk page, and has not used edit summaries.

• 1/9/14 - first
  • I revert: "Reverted 8 edits by Bidhan Singh: Changes appreciated, but they introduce several issues with accuracy, grammar, and WP:MOS. maybe we can talk on the talk page to figure out the best way to update this?"
• 1/18/14 - second
  • I revert: "Reverted 11 edits by Bidhan Singh (talk): Removing these changes again -- major change to meaning of lead without citing sources or explaining (use talk page please)"
• 1/21/14 - third
  • third revert
  • left a message on user talk

--— Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Update/disclosure: After noticing similarly problematic edits on the article for Media, I looked through the user's contrib history and found many of them on diverse articles significantly damage the content, introducing factual errors, changing meaning without consensus, or introducing intelligibility-breaking grammatical issues. I undid a couple more, but I'll stop now as I don't know what would be considered hounding in this regard. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• What Rhododendrites says. Edits are poor, made without talk page discussion, improperly sourced. The talk page suggests that there is a measure of incompetence here. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• See also this series, reverted by Ponyo. I looked at three articles they edited, and found the same problems in each. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. The fact that the edits in some cases appeared minor but altered the context to the point of making the article factually incorrect is very concerning. These types of minor edits are often missed in vandalism patrols and watchlists and have a real chance of remaining in the article for a lengthy period. Combined with the editor's complete lack of communication or acknowledgement of the valid and continuing concerns raised by others I believe that a block is pretty much the only option to prevent further disruption. Please feel free to unblock if there is any indication that Bidhan Singh is ready to address the issues raised (I will not be online much as I will be taking great pleasure in watching the Seahawks popping corks and making it rain when they win tomorrow).--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUTING by User:Jeremymr

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:Jeremymr is engaging in WP:OUTING with <edit link redacted for privacy -- available in edit history>. Would an admin be able to deal with it, please? StAnselm (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

email an oversighter ASAP.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Done -- but why tell someone else to do it instead of doing it yourself? EEng (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Mobile device with an email issue. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. Happy to help. EEng (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much everything is cleaned up now. I also sent an email to oversight. I had to block the user, as he was actively posting BLP violations into articles and onto talk pages. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And he's now repeating the same claims in his unblock request. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm emailing oversight again, this time requesting talk privileges be revoked. EEng (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

All cleaned up, talk privs revoked. EEng (talk) 13:04, 1 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.

WW2InfoBox

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.

---

Moved to Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#"Nazi Germany" vs. "Germany"

at Template:WW2InfoBox there is a user who removed "nazi" from nazi germany, it is more usefull to include "nazi germany" in the infobox than just "germany" , i think he will edit war over it, and his edit is not so constructive 90.132.40.49 (talk) 07:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a matter for ANI. Have you spoken to the editor on their talk page? Or on the MILHIST project page? AN/I is the last resort when there's a serious issue, not the first place to come with a concern somebody might edit-war. Your concern is appreciated, but without even knowing who the user is, there's nothing we can do. (If they do start actual edit-warring, the correct place to report is WP:ANEW; if they simply get into a dispute and discussion on the template talk page, their talk page, and/or projecr page are unfruitful, the next step is WP:DRN.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Was, as far as I can tell, just a matter of the word "Nazi" making that entry in the infobox stand out as inconsistent. Other country links point to WW2-relevant articles e.g. Empire of Japan. The problem was "Nazi Germany" used Template:Flag whereas Empire of Japan and the others use Template:Flagcountry. Switching the template used while maintaining the same links fixed the problem. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Which, by the way, is to reinforce The Bushranger's point that this attempts to address this through other venues would've probably succeeded pretty easily. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#"Nazi Germany" vs. "Germany"

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:AcidSnow

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 had made some edits to the article Hinduism in Pakistan that can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism_in_Pakistan&diff=593445517&oldid=593438770, but User:AcidSnow has formatted it, removing the sentences that say there were forced conversions back in time, that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005 etc. Please tell me what to do about it.—Khabboos (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

See section #User:Khabboos above. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:42, 1 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:Grade X

I don't know where else to report this. Anyway, recently I'm working on two BLPs from the noticeboard, Rick Joyner and Steve Stockman. These are unrelated subjects but there's been a lot of suspicious edit-warring on both, with 1houstonian blocked on Stockman and TheDude36 blocked on Joyner. Now, out of nowhere, comes Grade X and makes suspiciously similar rollbacks on both articles: Stockman here at 18:53 and Joyner here at 18:55. I don't even know how this is classified, but it's weird, wrong, and bad. I will notify everyone momentarily.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Alf.laylah.wa.laylah never alerted me about this report. I haven't touched the article on which he editwarred on since my second revert. I haven't touched the Joyner article either but it looked better to me in the previous revised state. Grade X (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

FFS, what do you call this?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Grade X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1houstonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheDude36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Now Grade X is removing my comments on noticeboards. Is this OK?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Also, note that per commons:User talk:JBingle#Blocked Unjustly two of the individuals involved in the edit war apparently share an IP. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Grade X is recreating the previously deleted article The Wimbles. It currently consists of nothing but a direct copy from a copyrighted site. His or her actions in recreating the article, deleting speedy tags, and edit warring to reinsert copyrighted material can no longer be explained as the actions of a new user. Meters (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I've seen someone else just recently "voting" Keep on an article talk page like this one did on The Wimbles' talk page. Peridon (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Grade X's last edit to the talk page wasn't half as weird as his previous edits, which consisted of: (1) putting in a meaningless template; (2) putting in a slightly more meaningful but ultimately meaningless template; (3) putting in the word "Milk"; (4) putting in "Newhaven" (as a template - he has a thing about Newhaven); and (5) putting in "East Sussex" (again as a template).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

GradeX, don't undo stuff; let admins decide if it's legit. They're not stupid; they'll deal with it appropriately.

All of ya - if in doubt, just stop... and talk. On the article talk page.

"suspicious edit-warring"? WP:RPP, to force discussion. Disruptive editors? WP:WARN then WP:ANI.

You think they're sock-puppeting? Report it on WP:SPI - don't accuse here.

Mostly - get back to a discussion on Talk:Rick_Joyner (or whatever article you have an issue with).

If you want admins to do something - tell them what and why. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sensible advice. BTW comments by other people on notice boards should not be removed unless they are definitely and clearly libellous or copyright violation. In either case, an admin should be contacted to revdel the offending material (assuming it is in need of extra deletion - if it isn't, the admin will restore it) or to revdel and contact oversight in more extreme cases. Peridon (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not removing any more editors' comments. Case dismissed. Grade X (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

But you're still creating inappropriate pages, including The Wimbles, this time as a redirect to Wimbledon F.C. I deleted it as an implausible redirect.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• A curious combination of combativeness and what I can only call incompetence, esp. on Steve Stockman. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't know if it's just an odd coincidence or some good hand/bad hand editing, but his last two mainspace edits have been to revert some IP edits to Morgan Freeman and Let's Rock the House, two articles with no connection to one another. Reverting different IPs on different articles, except the IPs, 94.196.241.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 92.41.110.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), both geolocate to the same exact location with the same exact ISP. Given that Grade X's non-BLP edits seem to be focused on that same geolocation that just seems to be an odd coincidence...especially since in both instances Grade X has somehow managed to revert those IPs within 60 seconds despite never editing either article previously. The only time they've ever seemed to have reverted that quickly is when it's from that specific geolocation, even their edit-warring at Rube Goldberg and the speedy deletion template removal from The Wimbles wasn't done that quickly... - Aoidh (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Public domain cartoons

Unfortunately I think we need moderator help with List of animated films in the public domain in the United States and User:86.184.235.95 - WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL and WP:RS. However the issue extends across many articles dealing with cartoons across many months. Other accounts (possible socks?) involved User:24.165.97.245 and User:31.51.74.67 and User:24.27.180.14 and User:86.176.244.182 and.. well it goes on and on. -- GreenC 19:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems like prot would calm things while it's worked out, so I requested it. [207] 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

...and it's happened. [208].

Discuss content on the talk page; report problem users on WP:ANI, and so forth; WP:DISPUTE.

Done here? 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected page for one week and blocked 86.184.235.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for two days for edit warring. --AdmrBoltz 21:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The article's current revision is a massive copyright labeling problem and rewards the problem user who is violating V, CIVIL and 3RR - and who IP hops around anyway so the block won't impact much. If you would like a suggestion: the article should be protected for registered users so that we can control for socks and user blocking will have some impact. In any case the current revision of the article should be rolled back to one made by myself or FilmandTVFan28 to address the copyright problem. -- GreenC 22:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Admrboltz, for looking into it. -- GreenC 23:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Threats from Dr. Blofeld to have me banned

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.

---

Dr. Bloefeld has threatened to have me banned from nominating articles to WP:AFD, claiming bad faith. There's some history with this editor, including previous personal attacks, frivolous accusations of bad faith and wikihounding, c.f., 1, 2, 3, 4. I've asked that he leave me alone 5. Obviously, he has no intent to do that. I don't appreciate the personal attacks and claims of bad faith and I certainly don't appreciate the threats. If he opposes the nomination, the proper response is to !vote to keep; threats and personal abuse are not appropriate. Requesting assistance. Msnicki (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, he can either get you banned from such nominations or not. It doesn't really rise to the level of a "threat". But Blofeld should now realise that you don't want him posting on your talk page any more, and he should respect your wishes by not doing so again. I don't see that any other action is necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

He's not done. He's simply taken his wikihounding back to another user talk page. Msnicki (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Anybody who nominates an article like this for deletion 26 minutes after creation, with no prod or request to expand and clearly ignoring available sources and taking straight to AFD really shouldn't be permitted to take articles to AFD. It's disruptive and a nuisance to editors who work here in good faith. I sourced Jazmín Chebar in 2 minutes flat. You've shown repeatedly that you have a history of bad faith and inappropriate nomming and articles keep being kept. Then when editors show a concern with your editing you remove their posts like you once did at an AFD and on your talk page and then claim you're being harassed. Truth be told your user name was only vaguely familiar when I approached you today even though it was a few weeks back but I encounter a lot o editors on here so it's difficult to remember everybody. But it did ring a bell with somebody who'd repeatedly make wrong AFD requests. After you removed my message to you, I remembered I got through better on Moxy's talk page where I see you've been causing a nuisance now as well with User:Hwy43. Proof of your time wasting and disruptive nature is that you've taken this here claiming I've personally attacked you and are seeking for me to be blocked or something. Unless you learn pretty soon you're going to find yourself restricted from editing here. Enough. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Pure bullying and completely inappropriate. Msnicki (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you think good faith editors feel when you pick on their work and try to get them deleted within 30 minutes? Bullied? Victimized? Made to feel like they're not wanted here? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see the notability of the linked article, and can, at least superficially, understand why it was nominated. IRWolfie- (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if Msnicki might like to explain the urgency in nominating articles written by experienced users for deletion within minutes of their creation ? Would they be open to waiting a few days before nominating articles for deletion or requiring a second opinion on their nominations ? Dr. Blofeld's behaviour, whilst arguably a touch aggressive, is a symptom and not the root cause of the problem, I think we should focus more on solving the cause, which should eliminate the symptoms, instead of spending too much time focusing on the symptoms in isolation. Nick (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no question I'm a deletionist and that I interpret our guidelines at WP:GNG asking that notability be established by reliable independent secondary sources fairly strictly. Over the years, I have made 40 nominations of which 2 are presently open. I withdrew 2 of them immediately based on new sources offered, 4 were closed as redirect, 1 as merge, 4 as no consensus and 2 as delete. The remainder were closed as keep. I have no idea how my "batting average" compares with all AfDs by all editors but I can assure you that all of my nominations were in good faith. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bech-Bruun, where I was the nom and first attracted Dr. Blofeld's ire, consensus went against me based on a Den Storee Danske page that looks to me like a WP:USERGENERATED wiki page. Contrary to Dr. Blofeld's claim, I have never deleted anyone's comment. What I did delete was an "Arbitrary page break" heading that seemed superfluous. Dr. Blofeld promptly replaced it and I let the matter drop.

In the case at hand, I did nominate quickly but only after making a good faith effort to examine the sources and look for more. I am aware that we should not WP:BITE newbies but an experienced editor is not a newbie and should be aware of the requirements of WP:GNG. I came upon the article because it was added to List of fashion designers, a heavily spammed list that is constantly attracting promotional entries. Further, while I remain the only delete !vote, I note that already, 2 of the 5 keep !votes are weak keep, the editors expressing reservations about the sources.

I certainly did not come here requesting a ban on me(!), so I'm surprised at that part of the responses, though I suppose I should be glad no one is !voting to ban me. The reason I came here is because I don't like being accused of bad faith and I don't like being wikihounded and I don't believe I should have to put up with it. From WP:AOBF, "repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack." Dr. Blofeld is certainly entitled to his opinion but he is not entitled to state it as a personal attack. If he disagrees with my nominations, he should focus on the evidence. I am not unreasonable and do have a history of changing my !votes and withdrawing my nominations based on other editors' arguments. I came seeking help and advice. I have never personally attacked Dr. Blofeld and I have no interest in fighting with him even though it seems like that's what he wants. Msnicki (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Msnicki. I know what you're saying about WP:GNG but I've always found it's worth giving an editor a few days to add in appropriate references, not everybody creates articles ready to go, some will create an article, play with the wording and add references after a bit of editing rather than straight away, I know it's not really ideal. We're not asking you to wait months but it would be good if you could give editors a few days rather than just 30 minutes to demonstrate notability. I'd go with watchlisting something, coming back to it in a few days, maybe a week or so, and then thinking about discussion with the editor. I'm fairly certain that if you were to agree to that, it would be enough to keep Dr. Blofeld and others here happy, resolving the issue. I don't see anything massively wrong with your batting average at AfD, just that you're perhaps being a little hasty in nominating. I don't immediately see anything ban worthy either (and I'm not actually sure what's going on below with voting anyway). Nick (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree to wait a week or so. Almost nothing on Wikipedia needs fixing immediately. But to clarify,I don't believe I have any real pattern of nominating immediately. I have nominated exactly 3 pages the same day they were created, 8 pages after less than a year (4 after 7 to 21 days, 2 after 1 month, 2 more after 2 months) and 27 pages after an average of just under 6 years. Msnicki (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've undone the closure by an IP, as I don't think it is appropriate for an IP to close an ANI discussion, let alone this one, which is still an active discussion (and one that needs to be had). Msnicki either needs to slow down with the AfD nominations, or be topic banned, because this sort of practice is out of order. And Dr. Blofield is most definitely not being a bully. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

“ I don't think it is appropriate for an IP to close an ANI discussion ”

- thanks for highlighting everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving right along. For the record, this admin thinks that NAC of a one-day old AfD is inappropriate. Signed, Drmies
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
:::::::::Hat removed per WP:SIGNHAT. (This editor thinks referring to one self in third person is a wee bit pretentious, don't you?) NE Ent 19:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Good gravy... if that's "everything that is wrong with Wikipedia" then Wikipedia is doing rather well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Sure, 88.104.24.150 (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC) I'd say a rather more serious problem is sockpuppetry, including the stealth use of IP editing by editors with well-established accounts, in order to evade scrutiny. BMK (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Going beyond what BMK said (which is something I agree with), any attempt to claim you are a newcomer is a bit daft. In this particular case, the issue was still being discussed, and it is also something that needs further discussion; I would've reverted a non-admin closure as well. I'm not aware of any instance where an IP has closed a discussion and it has stood, apart from perhaps one that they'd filed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Your account status/you being an IP is not the issue. The problem is the close was a bad decision. The original poster was asked for further information in an effort to actually resolve the incident when you closed the discussion down. It was right and proper to revert you, just as it would have been if you were a registered editor, an administrator, a member of ArbCom or Jimmy himself. If you wish to continue to close discussions, please ensure that there's no questions for participants and that the issue has genuinely been resolved, either through agreement between the parties, the case being referred to a different venue or some form of administrative action having been taken, and where possible, that there's no open questions awaiting an answer. Nick (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Propose a policy, or shut up. You know how. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, are you going to contribute something useful to this thread, or just trolling? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC) You seem to forget, I contributed the most useful thing of all - I closed it, so we could get on with editing. Who is trolling here? 88.104.24.150 (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• weak oppose ban, but I've seen a long history of premature and inappropriate AfD noms from Msnicki. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• oppose ban, Dr. Blofeld is sometimes very blunt when you do thinks he does not like. Half the warning in the message and you come close to what he really means. In most cases, you can safely ignore him. The Banner talk 00:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Safely ignore me? Of course this has nothing to do with Talk:The Dorchester and your inappropriate page tagging. You and Msnicki come from the same mold in inappropriate patrolling.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Banner, the potential topic ban I touted was for the OP, not Blofield. Not quite sure why people are voting, as no-one has actually set up a proposal for it, just stating that it could be a course of action. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

....hot air.... 88.104.24.150 (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"sockpuppetry, including the stealth use of IP editing by editors with well-established accounts, in order to evade scrutiny" - nice to see WP:AGF in action, isn't it? 88.104.24.150 (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

AGF until shown to be unwarranted. Everything you write points to your strong familiarity with Wikipedia's mores -- Oh, I know, you've been editing for a long time using various IPs, and that's how you can to know all this stuff! Of course!! So, if that were true, you are allowed to bounce around from IP to IP so that no one gets a handle on the character and behavior of the person actually doing the editing. A wonderful object example of why IPs shouldn't be allowed to edit, and, in a rational world, wouldn't be.

But I'll stick with my initial conclusion, that you're an established editor getting his jollies by tweaking noses and dancing around the trolling pole. Certainly, your contributions show that you're WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey! It turns out I was precisely correct: [209]. 88 has (or had) an account, and is here for the "lulz". BMK (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

BMK, if you think 88 (what an unfortunate name) is a troll, don't feed him. For the record, I do not agree with Lukeno94's earlier statement that an IP shouldn't close an active AfD discussion--IMO, no non-admin should. But let's drop all of that now. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I never said anything about AfD; it was this thread they closed (more than willing to drop it, just wanted the facts to be right) :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I just closed that AfD: no reason to let that linger. I do agree that this nomination was WAY premature, and the ease with which Dr. Blofeld claims to have sourced the article seems to belie the BEFORE claims made by Msnicki. Now, I an unwilling to let a topic ban discussion start, let alone continue, before a pattern of disruption is made clear. If that happens, we can talk. However, Msnicki, if you're 2 out of 40 on actual deletions, your batting average is abysmal! and you should really, really consider not doing that anymore. Or you might ask Blofeld how he does his searches. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What's done is done, I suppose, and I have no interest to continue pursuing the deletion. But, Drmies, did you actually look at the Google books results Dr. Blofeld cited or just take his word for it that they were helpful? There's a reason why WP:GOOGLEHITS is an WP:ATA. Every hit on the first two pages (and presumably, these are the best Google could find) is the absolute essence of a trivial mention. I think I do know how Dr. Blofeld does his searches: He accepts anything. Msnicki (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• This is hardly in-depth discussion, but it's not a trivial mention. Yes, I looked at it, when I closed the AfD, thank you for asking. Drmies (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's the entire "discussion": "Top fashion firms include Jazmin Chebar, Tramando, and Wanama." How could this possibly be any more trivial? Unbelievable. Msnicki (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"Very brief" is not the same as trivial, Msnicki. It's a real book, and being called "top fashion firms" is hardly trivial. Believe it. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, this appears to run counter to my own plain language reading of WP:GNG, which requires "significant coverage" as elaborated in the footnote, and of WP:SPIP, which requires that the works "focus" on the topic. But I am human and I make mistakes. If I have misunderstood what constitutes significant coverage, I would like to correct that. Consequently, I have requested guidance at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Msnicki (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you have not misread it. Articles should always be created with sufficient sources to pass WP:V, which requires that they be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Based" is an important word as well: it doesn't mean having one reference to a source that supports one detail, it means that the content is derived from reliable sources. The notion of time-limits for speedying, PRODing, and AFDing are popular among our more inclusionist editors, but they are not supported by any policies.—Kww(talk) 19:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

In this case i disagree with Drmies, which i don't often do. I don't feel that that bare opinion, however positive, with no further discussion, adds much to notability, and I think the wording of the GNG supports my view, as Msnicki says above. In this case it is probably moot, because there are other sources, and this isn't AfD or DRV anyway. But as a matter or principal. I don't thaink that once-sentence comment can be called "significant discussion", whether it is "trivial" or not. DES ^(talk) 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Then why start now? :) Oh, I would never argue that this comes anywhere near significant coverage, and I'm a card-carrying deletionist, as my "personal" categories should indicate. But it's far from a trivial mention, and if you add all the more and less trivial mentions in Ernst's search (I gave only one example), and you throw in the other references, they do add up to notability, at least in my opinion and in that of all but one of the participants in the AfD (and the nominator of course). Drmies (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well, when you finally get over your anti-IP thing, you will probably realise that "Dr. Bloefeld has threatened to have me banned" is ridiculous, and a waste of time. But hey, it's your time you're wasting, so whatever. -IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.24.150 (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Msnicki. You have a clear misunderstanding of notability. La Nacion is a national paper of Argentina and has many articles with extensive coverage. And the fact that the book cites the firm as one of the "Top fashion firms" indicates notability, regardless of coverage. All I ask is for you to look in google books for a topic first. Searching here the number of hits in multiple independent sources indicates notability in its own right. Some of the hits are simply passing mentions in travel guides, but national books would hardly mention her in a book about Argentina if she wasn't notable. Some of the sources which are only available in snippets clearly have a fair bit written about her anyway. All I ask is for you to a] look in google books before nominating an article and if you spot at least 10 hits in different books, however small, to reconsider taking to AFD and b] wait at least 24 hours after an article has been created to take it to AFD. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already said I would wait a week or more before nominating a page. But I disagree with your view that 10 Google hits means anything, especially given the advice at WP:ATA that WP:GOOGLEHITS are not sufficient and that "the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number." The AfD was closed and I have no interest in requesting a review but I stand by my view that the Google books results do not support notability. Not even close. They're all completely trivial mentions. Msnicki (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You'll find that a lot of wikipedia articles only have trivial mentions in sources and really lack true extensive coverage. We have thousands of articles on olympians and footballers for a start which have nothing but a database entry or two online, yet if you took them to AFD they'd be kept. Take Enzo Petito for instance. I can't find anything on him more than a line long. Yet if you took him to AFD he'd be kept. Unfortunately for countries like Argentina the amount of books scanned and wealth of coverage online is still rather poor. Finding decent information even for a lot of the contemporary actors is difficult at times. I think though you'd be amazed if you can access to an Argentine newspaper archive how many extensive articles you'd find written about her. Even as it is sources like [210], [211] [212] amounting to 479 hits in La Nacion (a leading Argentine national newspaper) [213] and [214] are more than trivial sources which if added to what claims are being made in the books obviously indicates notability. She does actually have extensive coverage, but you're not really experienced enough to know how to research and truly get an accurate idea of what is junk and what is worthy. I agree with you that articles should really all demonstrate great coverage in books etc but that isn't really all that's required on wikipedia to make an article worthy of keeping. I just don't like to see time wasted, and if you don't trust my judgement on what generally ends up being kept then you're going to continue to encounter difficulties and individuals far nastier than myself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Those article are allowed because the guidelines say they're okay. Athletes may be presumed notable in lieu of sources per WP:ATHLETE. Per WP:NGRIDIRON, football players are presumed notable if they have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any top-level professional league. Per WP:NOLYMPICS, athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the Summer or Winter Olympic games. Fashion designers and other creative professionals may be presumed notable in lieu of sources per WP:CREATIVE, but I find no evidence that Jazmín Chebar meets any of the stated criteria. Msnicki (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, we wouldn't delete them purely because all that can be found online is a database and no extensive coverage. It's the same with other articles which have to be assessed differently. Just try to take more care with investigating articles you nominate and wait at least 24 hours after an article is created to take it to AFD. I can say no more. Happy editing!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support three month holiday from AfD/Speedy deletion nomination - whatever else this thread does or doesn't achieve this edit doesn't seem to be an isolated incident. Unless it can be shown to be an isolated incident, or unless User:Msnicki demonstrates why he/she understands that such edits are problematic, then a three month break from deleting articles to other areas of contribution to the encyclopedia might help everyone. As a hopefully positive suggestion, one area may be in article improvement: The User has themselves since 2006 created 5 articles OPD Mini_Processor, Security tent, Random boosting, Empty chair (law), Hamilton C shell Command_substitution only the last of which reaches the level of sourcing content of the AfD example given. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Msnicki has agreed to take more time in nominating articles to AfD and Dr. Blofeld and Msnicki are now engaging in more constructive conversation, so I think it is time to close this thread. I am One of Many (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please. The AfD was closed as keep and I have stated quite definitely that I do not intend to challenge the outcome. I also promised that I will never again nominate a page until at least a week or more after its creation. I consider my own arguments here to be over and to have lost. Quite obviously, my understanding of WP:GNG is at variance from what far more senior editors understand it to ask of us. If the advice I received here regarding the specific case is correct, I'm obviously ignorant and I would like to correct that, gain a better perspective and avoid new mistakes. Frankly, the feedback I received here hurt and I would like to learn from it and move on. I do not want to be back here again. I have no interest or intent to continue fighting. Msnicki (talk) 20:50, 2 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.

Personal attacks and uncivil remarks by an IP address

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.

---

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

I warned the user on his/her talkpage, but he/she continues personally attacking me.

• "A supporter of terrorism calling others to civility!" and "The link is red with the blood of innocent Turkish diplomats killed by the ASALA terrorists, brain-washed by sickly extremist people of your kind." [215].

• Replaces Witnesses of the Armenian Genocide category with a non-existing ASALA terrorism category without an edit-summary [216].

• "There is a link in the article for those who wish to see a sick old man's hate contributions. Shame on WP for tolerating your dirty, poisonous propaganda." [217]

• "Corrected tendentious editing by a radical ASALA supporter." [218] Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Block 24.133.104.95 (talk · contribs) per [219] - "sickly extremist people of your kind" is well beyond WP:NPA. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Reiterating that request, because the user is adding copyrighted info [220] and not listening. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

24.133.104.95 (talk · contribs) has been blocked 31 hours by User:Ohnoitsjamie. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 2 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.

James R. Fouts article - multiple issues

Over at James R. Fouts, who is the mayor of Warren, Michigan, a local political battle seems to have spilled over onto Wikipedia. This is already on the COI board at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#James R. Fouts. There are at least four named editors and two anons involved in edit warring. Three of the named editors are SPAs. There are accusations of "outing", intimidation, paid editing, and what might be considered a legal threat. This is going to take someone with a big hammer. (I'm not involved in this; I'm in California.) --John Nagle (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested page prot, [221] 88.104.24.150 (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Page protection was denied. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"an IP shouldn't close an active AfD discussion--IMO, no non-admin should"

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.

---

That statement was made here [222]. The circumstances are probably not important, but I think the principle is.

Are IP users not 'as good' as regular users? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.24.150 (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As you've been closing discussions at AN and ANI all day as 'no admin action required,' I'm awfully tempted to do the same here. Can you explain what admin action you desire? Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm sure there are several users who echo that sentiment (I don't, but...), but as Kevin suggested above, this really isn't an issue. At the very least, perhaps move this thread to WP:AN? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Or, more properly, Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. StAnselm (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A review of your edits indicate that you are vying for attention and have a point to prove. What that point is though, I do not know. -- John Reaves 05:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a reason you can't find a WP:POINT - it's because I don't have one. All those edits were constructive, which seems to baffle you. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• IPs shouldn't even be allowed to edit, let alone to perform ostensibly administrative functions such as closing AfDs. Carrite (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion, and one that flies in the face of Wikipedia principles. Do you realise that Wikipedia was made by IP users? 88.104.24.150 (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• 88.104: request a specific admin action be taken in this section, or this section is getting hatted again in the near future, especially given that you've been hatting sections for the same thing all day. As a reminder (although I'm sure you're well familiar with things like 3rr from your obvious prior experience on Wikipedia,) the next time you unhat this section you'll have breached the 3rr (at ANI, which is impressive,) and thus be subject to a block even if no one bothers to whack you for WP:SOCK/WP:SCRUTINY violations first. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• For someone so intent on principles, IP 88 is an awfully poor reader. "Are IP users not 'as good' as regular users?" Eh, no, I'm saying that they are. I mean, I could go on and rephrase, "...close an active AfD discussion per SNOW blah blah blah", but that's wasted words. After reading this thread (I suppose the IP could have notified me, but what the hey) I now understand that their parting shot in the above section, about Dr. Blofeld, was aimed at me. Ah well. Kevin, go ahead and close this again: it's hardly contentious, and has gone past its expiration date. Drmies (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"I now understand that their parting shot in the above section, about Dr. Blofeld, was aimed at me." - no, sorry to hurt your ego - it was nothing to do with you.

Just the ridiculous state-of-affairs, where only admins are entitled to decide when things are closed - when it suits them; and their admin-friends are only too happy to support them, and block the infidels who dare defy them.

Your meaningless power is crushing the principles of Wikipedia. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You..do realise that on the Admin's Noticeboard, having admins decide when things are closed is kind of common-sense? Wait, you do, but since you've explicitly said you're here for lulz, you don't care. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Given that my only interaction with the IP above was in administrative contexts (hatting a discussion at AN,) I don't feel that blocking him for violating 3rr after a warning was an WP:INVOLVED violation on my part. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to revise my block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and I agree 88.104.24.150 did violate WP:3RR, but you were definitely involved. There was obviously a test of wills going on between the two of you. Msnicki (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what WP:INVOLVED means—I'm assuming that since no one has pointed to an involvement other than the recent outbreak at AN/ANI, that there is none. If an admin notices someone doing unusual things and comments to that effect, the admin is not involved if the unusual things escalate. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 2 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.

AFD broken

The log structure for AFD seems to be broken. For example, when I use the shortcut WP:AFD/T, the resulting page says "Template:broken ref". My impression is that the recent addition of some sub-headings for Software and Internet may have caused the trouble but I'm not sure of the details. Does someone know how to fix this, please? Andrew (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Better question for WP:VPT -- that's where the smart people hang out. NE Ent 12:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt of your problems, Andrew, but I just created an AfD, following the laborious instruction manual. It worked fine for me.Arildnordby (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, a bot thinks that Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business are AFD discussions that need to be transcluded in the daily log, which causes a template loop at WP:AFD/T. I'm still trying to identify the cause, and if I don't see it shortly, will just notify the bot owner. Monty₈₄₅ 17:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

My best guess is that this category may have been causing it, but its really just a guess. Will have to wait and see if the bot keeps doing it. I've left @Cyberpower678: a message regarding it. In my opinion, the bot does enough useful things, and the error is minor enough, that we are better off letting it run pending a resolution, even if it does keep breaking WP:AFD/T. Monty₈₄₅ 17:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

subject: Burzynski

I wonder if the lock on the 'Burzynski' page is because Wikipedia generally is subversive in nature, or because you have acquiesced to a group of goose-stepping big government/big pharma paid-for individuals who are known as "Skeptics", who's main intent is to discredit Dr. Burzynski and the success his clinic is and has had in treating cancer. Either way, this lock is perpetuating a lie and covering up a horrific government-led (FDA) campaign to drive Dr. Burzynski out of business. The result of the effort is that people have died unnecessarily, and more will die. Those deaths will be on your hands as well for cooperating with this effort.

Duane Christensen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.105.63 (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Burzynski Clinic is that-a-way, Duane. I suggest reading this first; as an encyclopaedia, we follow the curve, we don't lead it. Good luck. --John (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Poking about on Google brings this old yahoo groups thread up. Old, but the language plus the above gives an idea of the sort of disruption WP could face. This isn't a new thing just another in a long line of pro-this or that advocates. Blackmane (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

50.132.44.241

Special:Contributions/50.132.44.241 is a WP:SPA account, possibly related to the recent admin protect on 12th man (football). It's now devolved to harassment of editors. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Has already been blocked by admin Barek. Monty₈₄₅ 20:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)