Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive833

General disruption, personal attacks, and sockpuppet accusations

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

---

Atlantictire (talk · contribs), having been recently blocked [1] for a period of 24h by Drmies for referring to Producer as an "antisemtic crank", proceeded to further refer to him as a "bigot" not long after his block: "the people who advocate this are bigots and they should not be welcome here. If PRODUCER created that page then he is a bigot. No one should be punished for saying that" [2]. He doesn't believe he did anything wrong, and states so openly.

His block having expired, the user currently appears to be trolling on the talkpage of the aforementioned new article. Atlantictire has posted repeated accusations of sockpuppetry against Producer and myself [3][4]; e.g: the user replied to me, addressing me as "Producer" [5], and then mock-"corrected" himself [6] ("Sorry Direktor, I honestly do get you and Producer confused sometimes"). He seems to think himself "clever" in avoiding a direct statement [7]. Similarly, having been trolling for a while about how Slavs are antisemitic [8] (Producer and myself being Slavic), he basically admits he was trolling, but expresses his opinion that he managed to "technically" skirt policy [9] ("I just succeeded in provoking some belly-aching about slandering an ethnic group"). The user seems prone to attempts at gaming the system, such as false apologies.

I can only speculate as to the motivation of course, but since he's actively arguing for the article's deletion on DELREV, its entirely possible this is deliberate flaming and disruption of the article's talkpage functionality. Or maybe he's just having some fun with "bigots".

For context pls note this recent thread [10] concerning repeated accusations of sockpuppetry being used as a personal attack on the talkpage in question (and even here on ANI). The accusations are, of course, entirely baseless (see the old SPI thread [11], and this recent one [12]). -- Director (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. User Director teamed up with his buddy to trap Atlantictire in an attempt to distract him from productive editing at Jews and Communism. Director and his tag team buddy both reverted 3 times each in a tag team effort against Atlantictire. Director continued to delete sourced information and was successful in getting the article blocked by an admin. After blanking sourced information [13], Director refuses to discuss it on the talk page. However, he has time to waste time here. Director is being disruptive and seems to have very few interests outside this article [14]. He should be permanently blocked form editing Jews and Communism. USchick (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. Practically not a single word in the post is accurate, nor supported by diffs.

I reverted twice, producer reverted once. It was not a "tag team", we're both actively discussing and editing the same article. I reverted a massive undiscussed edit to a controversial article to discuss the problematic aspects, and started a thread about the subject - which was in turn disrupted by repeated accusations of sockpuppeteering [15]. Hence this thread. I have more than 51,000 edits on enWikipedia, and have more interests here than I can recall at this time (in fact, I just recently finished adding a new section here, happy to share :)). -- Director (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jews and Communism#Recent (massive, undiscussed) addition by IZAK. USchick (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I said. Not supported by diffs. -- Director (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Director continued to delete sourced information and was successful in getting the article blocked by an admin."

I think you meant that the article was protected. Users get blocks, pages get protected. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I only "reverted sourced information" once. As I explain on the talkpage and in the edit summary, it was a massive edit, and I wanted to discuss several problematic aspects before agreeing on a consensus version. -- Director (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

And then something prevented you from discussing the content? But here you are, discussing something completely irrelevant to the content. USchick (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I started a thread on the topic, and then unfortunately Atlantictire arrived and posted sockpuppet accusations; the thread immediately devolved to his sockpuppetry PAs and my warning him to stop with the sockpuppetry PAs. I actually said so [16]. Its offensive, esp. considering this stuff and the recent SPI. That's all I currently have to say to you, USchick. -- Director (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So since then, you didn't discuss content, but you wasted people's time arguing there, and then you proceeded to come here and waste more time arguing here. I see. USchick (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Direktor I'm sorry I offended you. When I said I didn't want to report you to admins for exceeding the 3RR and discouraged others from doing it I was trying to make a show of good faith towards you. Since you are often sarcastic in your interactions with other editors, I'm frankly surprised that you would construe a bit of sarcasm from me as "personal attacks." My sarcasm towards you started after enduring days of your reverts of other editors' work. Full disclosure: I did call him a bigot upon first encountering the article and was blocked for it. But I haven't since although he has brought it up to threaten me numerous times. By making the Slavic analogy I was trying to get you to have more empathy for the Jewish editors who found the article offensive. I said numerous time Slavophobia was unacceptable, as is ant-Semitism. Considering how often he reverts and how conciliatory I've been and reluctant to make changes of any sort without discussion, this feels very disrespectful and hypocritical. It also feels like an attempt to maybe intimidate someone whose perspective he dislikes.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Its not much of a show of good faith if the "3RR violation" is fake, and is really just another provocation. -- Director (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this right...you're complaining about personal attacks...by making personal attacks? Well...OK then. I'll note that the first diffs appear to be stale, but perhaps Drmies just didn't see them, or perhaps he just didn't see an issue there. That would be for them to say. However, much of the diffs and discussion I am reading do not show accusations of sock puppetry. What I see is that they feel the two are tag teaming and working together to work their content and exclude others (not saying this to be accurate, but what it appears the editor is saying). I think if I were having a hard time with two editors, one named "Director" and one named "Producer" I might have become suspicious as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please note he refers to Producer and Myself as "definitely not sockpuppets PRODUCER & DIREKTOR". I certainly hope Atlanictire isn't right in believing such comments are perfectly fine? If someone says, "the definitely not handsome rogue DIREKTOR", would you assume I am not complimenting myself? Because I said "definitely not"? (If so, you would be wrong, I am a handsome rogue ofc :))

• Further, the sentence "My sockpuppet USchick and I are very bad at coordinating in such a way that preserves any of IZAK's edits. You and PRODUCER, on the other hand, are like a couple of trapzee artists with those 'undo' and 'rollback' functions" also implies sockpuppeteering on the part of the "trapzee" artists, consideriing the context.

• Finally, I can't see how referring to myself by the username of a claimed suckpuppet does not consititute a transparent accusation of sockpuppetry.

Then again, I'm not an admin. So should I henceforward prefix any unpleasant terms with "definitely not"? :) As regards the similarity of the names, please see the context: it has come up before in the discussions, and the situation was made clear. Though I must say I dislike the implication that I should accept slander of this sort simply because my username can be interpreted as similar in theme with someone else's. -- Director (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not the first time you refuse to discuss content and throw around accusations instead. If someone feels like wasting even more time, it's all here Talk:Jews and Communism USchick (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Refuse to discuss content" ? What I see at this thread is an request by Direktor to discuss large-scale changes beforehand, only to see it be met with snide and dismissive comments by Atlantictire ("Would the definitely not sockpuppets PRODUCER & DIREKTOR..."), with a side order of your nastiness in the previous thread ("Are you ganging up on my sock puppet again?"). The atmosphere in that article talk page is beyond toxic. Tarc (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jews and Communism#Edits by IZAK The toxic environment is created by Director when he lists sources and then tells me that I'm not allowed to discuss the sources he listed because he only wants to use the sources for his own benefit, and not for what the sources actually say. Like he does here Talk:Jews and Communism#Who is a Jew?. He lists a source, and then when it doesn't suit him anymore, he threatens me and wants me to stop discussing it. USchick (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Atlantictire for 72 hours. I largely agree with Tarc's concise analysis. The user is repeating his earlier behavior but with a twist of obliqueness and pushing the envelope. He seems to be here mostly to carry the banner of protecting the world from anti-semitism rather than building an encyclopedia and editing collaboratively. He makes personal value judgments and then imposes them on other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure who created the toxic environment but after reading what Tarc wrote I see exactly what they are saying. While I would not have blocked over just that, but Bbb23 is much more specific. While I think the block could be seen as insensitive...at what point do we have a warrior and not a contributing editor. I still believe this was the wrong way to complain and suggest that the filing editor may deserve a 24 hr block for personal attacks.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You're simply encouraging Director to continue to terrorize other editors. USchick (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Associating yourself with someone in "full troll mode" isn't helping you, USchick. Stay calm, maybe seek a 3O. (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not associating. There was consensus on the talk page not to report Director. Obviously that was a mistake. USchick (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, not assotiating. But you shouldn't take the admin-action as an endorsement for Direktor. Atlantictire's approch was not ok, and I just wanted to encourage you to keep going in a professional way. 80.132.77.41 (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand and thank you for your encouragement. Director spends a lot of time getting editors banned from articles that he thinks he owns. There went another one. USchick (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You beat me to it by about five seconds. I would have used WP:NOTHERE as a block rationale, because it's quite clear that is the problem; baiting other editors is the least of it. Black Kite (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually did use WP:NOTHERE as one of the rationales although I didn't link to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, you've got one-up on me; I've never been asked/told to eat my fuck before. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be a one upon just about everyone.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The appearance of ProducerIsASockPuppetAntiSemite (talk · contribs) may be of interest. They're blocked, of course. Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You might ask a CU if those dots connect, and I wouldn't want to assume without CU. If they do, it would justify extending the block on Atlantictire to an indef. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it would be all too easy to set up Atlantictire this way. Hello CUs, anyone want to do a check? Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

USChick, Wikipedia is not a battleground. This backpattery for fighting a "battle" that's "noble" is highly inappropriate. [17] Especially after that particular user tells admins to: "Eat my fuck. You enable Anti-Semites." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And the other half of the tag team shows up. Please present your Gestapo badge before you attempt to tell me with whom I am allowed to joke around on their own personal talk page. Did you notice where I started a new discussion called "Life Lessons?" Do you think that's relevant? Would you like to go back into the edit history to see how many editors the tag team Producer/Director have successfully blocked? USchick (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That's completely uncalled for. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Which part? The review of your and Director's edit history? Let the admins decide. USchick (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say USchick's heading very quickly for a block of their own ... extremely quickly indeed DP 18:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  Agreed. A confrontational attitude, especially from a person that states that "fighting battles is a very noble cause" at a project based on collaboration and consensus is not going to last long. USchick, you desperately need a new tack in the way you approach Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 18:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

My comment is about life in general, not Wikipedia. There is a life lesson for Atlantictire here that's much bigger than Wikipedia. USchick (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Life itself is much bigger than Wikipedia (which is why I'm prone to occasional Wikibreaks) but if life and Wikipedia conflict, or if the approach you take to life (and use at the project) is antithetical to Wikipedia, then you'll have a problem here. -- Atama頭 19:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes exactly, and that's why he's blocked. USchick (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Atlantictire has (rather ironically) created a sockpuppet, 2602:30a:2c0d:c9a0:9577:a271:88ee:bab1 (talk · contribs), to evade his block and continue with the personal attacks [18]. Pls see the use of carets (^) by Atlantictire throughout the talkpage (e.g. [19]) and their appearance in the sock post. -- Director (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, a Checkuser needs to take a look. This is exactly the type of situation that requires those tools. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed, that eliminates the possibility of this being a false flag that is intended to make the editor appear even more guilty. -- Atama頭 22:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh its him alright, I'll post an SPI. -- Director (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, I occasionally confuse Direktor with Producer. Also, Atlantictire was righteously blocked, twice in a row, and had I seen those edits I would have made the same block for disruption, personal attacks, passive-aggressive commentary, baiting, et cetera. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 22 March 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.

Insisting to include large direct quotes

Copied by me from the section of the same name at WP:AN. Nyttend (talk)

In here user:Johnleeds1 is insisting on copying a huge part of the book to the article despite my reminder. Also, I am not clear why he is resisting the removal of primary sources in a historical article. I am writing here to avoid an edit war. Thank you.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the sources, but such a large quote of nonfree copyrighted material is going far beyond fair use. I quote Folsom v. Marsh, upon which fair use is based:

If he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy.

John's edits have the effect of adopting the text as part of what we're saying, rather than using Kennedy's words so that we can comment on what Kennedy says. I've removed the text in question and will be giving John a stern warning. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

At almost 700 words, it is clearly copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And I see Nyttend warned him about it, thanks. I also just noticed that I warned him in the past about copying within Wikipedia without attribution. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The same long quote has been pasted on the article's talkpage. It's not allowed there either, surely? The non-free content criteria policy concentrates on articles, but it does say "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media" etc. My italics. So I've removed it from talk as well. Some copyright otaku had better please revert me if that wasn't right. Bishonen | talk 15:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC).

You were right to remove it. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind you removing the text from the book The Great Arab Conquests By Hugh Kennedy. We all need to work together to improve the articles on Wikipedia. The article is being used to push views on if Ali should have been the first caliph or the third caliph 1400 years ago. The article needs to be neutral and objective. The reason why I included the extract from Hugh Kennedy's book was because it provided a neutral and objective commentary and was not from a Muslim source. This whole article needs to be looked at and needs to be scholarly. May be it needs to be rewritten. The article argues about events that occurred 1400 years ago. The books written about those events were written 300 years after the events. The reason I included some text from the primary sources was because these were the earliest books that I could find talking about these events. There is more common ground in the early Sunni and Shia books on these events and they are more neutral. The positions of both the Sunnis and the Shias has diverged over the last 1400 years and that has resulted in arguments on this article. The article is being used as a forum to push their modern views. The article is being used to push divergent views to create conflict, where as the reality is most likely more in the middle. That is why both the Sunnis and the Shias respect Ali and according to both the early Sunni and Shia books Ali appears to have adopted and raised Abu Bakr's son Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, when Abu Bakr passed away. According to both early Sunni and Shia books their children and grand children inter married. 1400 years later, this article is being used to push views that have diverged considerably, from the views held in the early books. The article needs to be neutral and objective. There is a lot of common text in both early Sunni and Shia books that is not being included on this article because it does not benefit the people pushing their views on this article.

Kazemita1 removed a lot of other text, much of which was already on the page and retained Wilfred Madelung text even though that also falls into the same category, just because it pushes his views and he could use it to create conflict. He objected to me using primary sources to show the common ground, when the whole article is already full of primary sources. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

disruption, BLP violations, POV and soapboxing by User:Need1521 at Dmitry Medvedev

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 raised this issue earlier at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#i.p._disruption_and_WP:BLP_violations_at_Dmitry_Medvedev. On 2 March User:Need1521 made this pointy edit basically saying that because Medvedev *didn't* do something, they were responsible for glorifying crimes created during the Stalinist era and earlier, even though Medvedev wasn't even born until 1965. When that was reverted, they used an ip to reinsert it. Then, on 16 March, they added the clearly inappropriate Category:Human rights abuses. When editors removed this, they used several ips to readd it. They ignored advice of other editors at Wikipedia:Blpn#Dmitry_Medvedev that the material was unacceptable, insisting that anyone upholding WP:BLP was simply an employee of Medvedev. After unsuccessfully reverting the ips addition User:Mike_Rosoft protected the page for a couple of days. The ip complained about this at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_159#Complaint, where they were again told that their soapboxing was unacceptable. They continued arguing on regardless, their last comment there basically arguing that because Russia had recently blacklisted several US officials, "patriots of Wikipedia (from USA)" should take revenge against Russia by supporting their soapboxing on the article. They also simply waited out the 2 days and resumed readding the material, being again reverted by User:Materialscientist, who was forced to semi-protect the page again. Despite that, they've reverted to their Need1521 account to edit war to get their POV back in. Valenciano (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hair-raising. One might add extremely poor English (Google Translate?). I've indeffed Need1521, for all the good it may do, considering their access to such a variety of IPs. I suppose we may have to keep the article semiprotected for a good long time. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC).

That does seem to resolve the issue for now, though sadly I have a hunch that it may not be the last we hear from that person. They refuse to get the point, see this all as a big conspiracy against them and while incompetent at following our rules or advice, are competent enough at finding ways round our rules, for example, they made exactly ten edits to their user page a few days ago, making them autoconfirmed. On the plus side, a couple of admins now have their eyes on the article, so that should nip any further disruption in the bud. Valenciano (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

IP-hoppers who disrupt all over the site are a problem, but this person, who's only interested in one article, can be managed easily enough with semiprotection. And if they've currently got other accounts waiting to be autoconfirmed, those should be easy to identify and indef as they turn up. Thanks for reporting, Valenciano, and feel free, if you like, to just drop a line on my talk if you see further problems. Bishonen | talk 11:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC).

<removed irrelevance from block-evading IP, Bishonen | talk 00:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC).>

Need1521, I'm going to explain the situation, because I realize you may not understand it. Your account has been indefinitely blocked for edit warring as well as violations of WP:BLP and refusal to pay any attention to Wikipedia's rules and policies or to advice from experienced editors. The block on your account means that you're not allowed to post from IPs either (nor to create a new account and post from that). Your only recourse if you wish to continue to edit Wikipedia is to request unblock of your account; for how to do that, see the instructions in my block message on your page. All right, this is the first and last time I reply to you. From now on, I and everybody else here will simply revert any block-evading IP edits you may make. Bishonen | talk 17:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC).

I have no relation to the user "Need1521". But I am agree with his words on this page. I also think: there’s no need to create the dangerous precedent vs this rule of Wikipedia (living persons). What’s the reason to consider that the interests of Medvedev are better than the interests of all those people, whose rights are violated (relatives of victims - they are living people too). Any citizen of Russia has right to live in the country, where his moral rights are respected (there are 150 of millions of them). Many of these people know nothing about Lenin and December 20 of 1917 year, but such fact has no great importance. Putin isn’t better than Medvedev in this situation. Boris is the separate case (a large number of reasons). - 178.66.191.199 (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC).

Content issues should be discussed on the article's talkpage, 178, provided they're relevant to improvement of the article; the talkpage isn't a soapbox. Here, on this page, you're completely in the wrong place, and so was Need1528 (=95.29.78.212) above. This is a noticeboard for conduct issues that need administrator attention, not a forum. As for the policy regarding living persons, it isn't some novelty here. We've had it since 2005, and it's one of our core policies. If you disapprove of Wikipedia's core policies, the solution is to edit somewhere else, somewhere with different policies. There are plenty of message boards and chatrooms on the internet. Wikipedia is not a guarantor of your free speech; it's an encyclopedia, and a private website. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC).

• I've removed several soapbox edits from IPs used by the indeffed Need1521, whose style is unmistakable. Unless somebody who isn't that person has something to add here, the thread should be closed. I'll do it tomorrow unless somebody else gets in there first. Bishonen | talk 00:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

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

Block review

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

---

I have blocked AkiraKinomoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock of Fairyspit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the basis of behavioural evidence: first edits clearly indicate someone who is not a new user, area of interest is identical (especially the obsession with Cumberbatch) , the account has no edits prior to the blocking of the last lot of socks, and one of the user's early actions is to request unprotection of a title with which Fairyspit is also obsessed. As usual with this kind of thing, the evidence is purely circumstantial and I invite review. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Good block. AkiraKinomoto, Largetrope (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and AngGandaNiVice (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are  Confirmed sockpuppets. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 09:10, 22 March 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.

@JzG: @DoRD: @Dennis Brown: FYI - now socking as 107.161.159.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 17:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• • I sprinkled a little semi-protection around, which might discourage continued socking, although I won't hold my breath. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Solarlive

User:Solarlive a WP:SPA who's entire contribution history seems to consist of POV-pushing, WP:BLP violations and personal attacks, has now chosen, despite repeated requests by multiple contributors [21][22][23], and despite being the subject of a thread at WP:BLPN, [24] to restore clear violations of WP:BLP policy in multiple articles - complete with personal attacks in the edit summaries: [25][26][27]. Since it seems self-evident that someone who describes other contributors as 'scumbags' and who is incapable of understanding elementary BLP policy isn't here for the benefit of the encyclopaedia, I suggest we block indefinitely. 15:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit - I see that User:NawlinWiki has blocked Solarlive for 72 hours. I'll contact NawlinWiki, as, per my above comments, I think an indefinite block would be more appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• • I think he did that in the spirit of escalating blocks. Looking at his contribs, I'm guessing it will be moot in a week anyway. Not only does he keep shooting himself in the foot, but he's reloaded a couple of times. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the insults in edit summaries began on Day 1: [28], [29]. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Involved Admin issued a block for edit warring without warning based on 2 edits 10 hours apart

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This admin, who has been involved in discussions in which he has gone on record of something in support of that I have gone on record as opposing issued a 24 hour block for edit warring on the article Sevastopol based on 2 edits that I made that were 10 hours apart from one another [30], [31]. He also cited edit warring at "other Crimea related pages". I can only assume that he meant this edit at Ukraine which restored the original map that includes Crimea from one added that did not include Crimea. The map issue is currently under discussion on the talk page and the issues being discussed is whether or not the area of Crimea should be shaded light green or not, but the map added by Messir completely removed the Crimea from the map. Now considering that the Crimea-less map was again reverted by another user after it was re-added and the map currently includes Crimea, my edit could hardly considered contentious in nature especially considering that removing Crimea from the map is the national equivalent to a BLP violation right now. Now I say that I was not given a warning, but the blocking admin cited this message on my talk page as evidence of being warned of edit warring. Thats not really a warning, but even if it was, my only edits to main space after this message were the three that I previously linked and none of which is beyond reasonable or contentious. In addition, I went on record as attempting to have this block reviewed and overturned. the reviewing admin cited several edits I made to the article dating back three days, now four days in which I was reverting NPOV violations to the article Ukraine. I will point out that there were quite a few problems with POV edits and POV pushers at that time that needed some immediate attention. But my question to this is that if those edits were problematic, why wasn't it brought up at that time? The time to address those edits was three days, now four days ago.

Also I would like to point out that the blocking admin fully protected the article Crimea on March 19th [32], but not before changing the article to his preferred version [33] and then making two additional edits [34], [35] after the article was fully protected. Now on the surface, those edits seem fine, but involved admins should not be "fully protecting" articles in which they have been editing and then continue to make edits after the protection is in place.

As far as the article at Sevastopol in concerned, I believe that instead of issuing a block to a well established user who is obviously just trying to keep these articles from getting out of hand with tons of POV edits and NPOV violations, a more competent admin would have fully protected the article(s) and allow the dispute resolution process continue naturally, especially considering the admins obvious involvement in the article(s) main page and talk page. A more competent admin would have asked for help or a review of the block. I've seen very good admins coming to this page and asking for reviews of their blocks. Its not hard, an the admin knew that I planned to bring this here when the block was lifted. It surpasses me that he did not come here first to ask for assistance before I had the chance to do it myself. Like a said, a more competent admin would have made many different choices over the past four days. I truly believe that the blocking admin believes that what he was doing was fro the good of the project, but considering the admins "involved" status, the motives are questionable.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Jojhutton's presentation of the facts is seriously misleading as far as the extent of his own edit-warring is concerned. As was outlined on his talkpage, the block wasn't based on "2 edits that were 10 hours apart", but 11(!) reverts in less than three days, of which 7(!) had been within the first 24 hours of that period. As for my "uninvolved" status, I never edited anything directly related to the Sevastopol article on which Jojhutton was edit-warring. I did file opinions on two Crimea-related move or merge requests. These, however, were motivated by considerations that were quite orthogonal to the political divisions that have been fuelling the revert-wars on Crimea topics these days, so I continue to consider myself uninvolved and neutral with respect to the general area, and I am certainly not in any kind of dispute with Jojhutton in particular. The edits I made to the Crimea article itself in the context of my protection of it were technical cleanup and fully in the spirit of WP:PREFER ("administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists"), and are also very far from constituting any administrative conflict of interest with respect to Jojhutton. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The seven you point out I assume were from the article Ukraine, in which I was hardly in the minority opinion about. There was, and still is an ongoing discussion about that map. Unfortunately we get users who do not want to participate in that discussion nor are unaware of the discussion and blindly change the maps. Thats fine because its being Bold and we encourage that, but you will notice that in my edit summaries I usually politely ask the user to participate in the discussion. The last edit I made to Ukraine is probably the least contentious edit anyone could have ever made, and in fact I would have expected anyone to revert that map that was added by Messir. You expressly cited edit warring at the article at Sevastopol which you referenced in your block message. Yes you never edited that article, but I only made two edits to that article several hours apart that had little do to with one another. One was to remove a Russian infobox that had been removed by other users before. Again that is hardly contentious in nature and again its only two edits. As far as being warned, I made three main space edits in that time after being reminded not to go over 3RR to two separate articles, none of which can be considered contentious or highly controversial. Why you simply decided to issue a block instead of fully protecting Sevastopol, I would would like to hear explained.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Your memory must be remarkably short. The 11 reverts in three days and 7 in a single day were all on Sevastopol, and they were directed against several other editors, including good-faith experienced contributors, and in defence of a highly contentious POV analysis of the situation that you were upholding. Those latest 2 reverts on that article may have come more slowly, but they were clearly still part of the same edit-war you had been engaging in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If you had a concern with those edits then this should have been addressed at the time, instead of randomly blocking without warning over day old edits. It seems a bit unfair to bring those up without being issued a warning about them. And again that was the day that there were quite a few of serious POV edits being made across several articles on this crisis. Many editors, especially experienced one were being bombarded with serious violations of NPOV. And again if there were problems with those edits, you should have addressed them at that time. Instead of waiting two days.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

For starters, WP:INVOLVED isn't an absolute bar from action and in this case I don't see how it applies anyway. Fut. Perf's participation in the overall topic seems more technical than emotional.

That said, a final warning wasn't given and should have been used in this case, as the problem with this editor wasn't urgent, but was instead a pattern over a period of days. I see several arguably problematic edits over a week, but I don't see rapid edit warring that REQUIRED an instant block to stop any immediate damage to the encyclopedia. Most IP vandals get a warning before we block them, established editors should get no less, particularly when the pace of the editing is less than "furious". In the 24 hour period before his block, I counted 13 total article edits on Wikipedia, and half of those are unrelated to Crimea in any way. That is not furious editing. Without question, a discussion should have been started instead of a block without warning. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Fut. Perf is one of our best admins, but concur that this particular block was unnecessary. For the record, Jojhutton has been at the forefront of containment on conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 and other similar areas, so it wasn't fun watching him getting blocked for his efforts on Crimea related pages, especially after reviewing the edits and seeing that the block could be seen as punitive rather than preventative.--MONGO 16:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Fut Perf handles some of the hardest stuff at enwp, and I respect that (although he might be miffed at me right now). I don't think he abused anyone or broke any policy, I just think his choice was hasty here. Doesn't make him a bad guy, but it was a bad choice. I would rather chew an established editor out a bit on their talk page first, than block them. Blocks are funny....once you block someone a few times, they no longer care if they get blocked, they just get bitter. Then you no longer have the power of a potential block to influence them. That is why I try to NOT block someone unless it is really the only or obvious choice. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Especially the part about hasty being bad. NE Ent 18:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note that a DRN case has been filed concerning this page. It is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Sevastopol. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• WARNING:User:Dennis Brown and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise made an alliance on the page Talk:Republic of Crimea. THE CREATED COMPLETE MESS. Tibet2014 (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • WARNING: Do not accuse others of meatpuppetry unless you provide solid proof. We get you don't like Dennis' close. You've been told how you can address that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Report tendentious editing of Doug Ose

The article for Doug Ose is being edited with partial bias by users User:50.173.12.209, User:2602:304:B2D0:BEC9:1C82:EF6B:627E:8037 and User: Fern On Dirt in previous edits of the article. Entries made by them under "2008 Election" and "2014 Election" and "Congressional Career" contain information without adequate evidence as well as partial bias. There may be more editors involved, so I highly recommend looking through the edit history as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sierra223 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sierra223, can you provide evidence of specific edits (diffs) that you believe are colored by bias? Some examples would help busy editors who don't have time to analyze page edit histories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Liz, here is a quote from a previous edit: "During his work in Congress, Ose was named a “Hero of the Taxpayers” by Americans for Tax Reform, a “Guardian of Small Business” by the National Federation of Independent Business and earned a “Tax Fighter” award from the National Tax Limitation Committee. Ose voted for a $1.35 trillion tax reform package that ended the marriage penalty tax, lowered the estate tax and increased child tax credits for American families. He served as Chairman of a House Government Reform Committee, where former President Bill Clinton and former First Lady Hillary Clinton were exposed for failing to properly report over $190,000 in jewelry, furniture and other personal gifts. This act led to legislation expanding presidential disclosure requirements. In addition, to combat illegal immigration, Ose voted to use new technology and additional agents to secure America’s borders, and fought efforts to block construction of a border fence. Ose also authored a resolution in keeping the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and he supported legislation against defiling the American flag [1].

Ose was one of the few Members of Congress to honor his pledge of serving no more than three terms. Therefore, in 2004, he did not stand for re-election and was instead briefly a candidate in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. However, in spite of his pledge, he did seek a seat in Congress again in 2008 when he lost the Republican primary to Tom McClintock in California's Fourth Congressional District, and is currently trying to return to Congress again."

The citation was from a nonexistent link (cited as www.dougose.com/about.asp). When I browsed through actual campaign website there was information in the bio page, but it did not contain the information that was cited in the edit.

Here is another biased edit: "After Congressman John Doolittle, who represents California's 4th congressional district, announced on January 10, 2008 his intent to retire from the U.S. House of Representatives after completing his 9th term, Ose weighed in on possibly running for Doolittle's seat during the 2008 elections. On February 1, 2008, Ose formally announced that he would run for California's 4th congressional district seat. He picked up endorsements from Congressmen Dan Lungren, Duncan Hunter, and Wally Herger, as well as State Senator Dave Cox, and Assemblyman Roger Niello and Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa. Additionally, Ose was endorsed by Placer County Sheriff Ed Bonner (who appeared in at least one local TV ad for Ose and did other events for him).[1]" The citation here contains another web page on www.dougose.com that does not exist. The editor listed it as a "endorsements page" (claimed to be http://www.dougose.com/endorsements.asp), but under the offical "Supporters Page" on the website, none of those alleged endorsements are available at http://www.dougose.com/supporters where they are listed.

Somebody also included a quote that seemed irrelevant under the 2014 election history category. "On March 18th, Doug Ose said to the Sacramento Bee; "When I was there [in Congress] before, I figured out how to get stuff done. When I go there again, I'll figure out how to get stuff done again.""

Perhaps I could be mistaken, but this did not seem appropriate or objective to include a campaign statement from the candidate advertising his qualifications. There are several other edits that have been added and deleted by users that were equally biased, but I do think that the page deserves some oversight from admins.

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sierra223 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, hopefully, this report will draw some attention to the article and it will have more eyes on it. Has this issue been discussed on the article talk page? By the way, don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes, ~~~~! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR and other issues from a non-English editor

Lindodawki (talk · contribs) has been adding material to two articles: Gospel music and contemporary Christian music. The problems are that 1) it's not supported with references and 2) it's not really related to either subject as the discussion is about contemporary worship music and not the subjects. While Gospel music associations distribute awards, there are distinct sub-genres and the discussion is not appropriate at either of these articles. I have tried to explain this here and here and possibly other locations. I'm not sure if the subject is fluent in English since the edits to the contemporary Christian music article show signs of common activity on non-English Wikipedia projects (notice the use of flags) and so rather than continue to edit war with the subject I would like some intervention, preferably from an admin, but if admins agree that it should be taken to a dispute resolution board instead, I can do that. I'm not seeking a block, simply some oversight and discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Editor now appears to have gone anon for three edits as 177.189.59.51, which are non-controversial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

How we should deal with users with this type of behavior?

This user started a non-stop battle on many pages. Involved in edit warring, nationalistic POVs, using multiple IPs (and maybe multiple accounts), and anti-ethnic slur in his edit summaries (very bad edit summaries). Currently, he is blocked for 48 hours. See his contributions. If he continues, report him to incidents board or 3rr/edit warring board? Zyma (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing English isn't his first language. As much as I scold my dad whenever he tries to say "if you want to come to America, you need to speak English," I do think a lack of proficiency in English isn't an excuse for behavior that's disruptive in any language.

After his block, if he once again edit wars, pushes a nationalist POV, socks, or uses an anti-ethnic slur -- and he expresses no desire to improve -- I see no reason to not indef him. If he expresses a desire to change at that point, and explains how he's learned to behave better, maybe unblock him but re-indef if he's disruptive up again.

If he's going to be more trouble than use to this site, and if he's not interested in changing his behavior, there's no reason to keep him. All the admins can do is minimize his damage. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: Instead of going to 3rrNB or where ever, probably just come here and point to this thread (may be in the archives). A reasonable admin will block him. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive and unresponsive behaviour by User:Merlin the 2nd and User:50.98.103.127

The above two users, the former likely being the signed in version of the latter, has repeatedly been moving images on List of cities in Alberta against consensus throughout the last four weeks. It started as a good faith move of images to be the right of the list table. However, 117Avenue and I have had to repeatedly revert these moves as, on most screens, the attempts push the table down creating unnecessary white space.

Diff set #1 (February 24-27):

• existing photos removed by IP
• revert by me regarding unexplained removal of content
• warning placed with IP
• new photos added by IP
• existing photos removed by IP
• revert by 117 noting "pushes table down on small browsers"
• second warning placed by me regarding unexplained removal of content elsewhere

Diff set #2 (March 9):

• photos moved by IP
• revert by 117, again noting "moves the table down on small browsers"

Diff set #3 (March 13):

• photos moved by IP, this time with the edit summary "I have moved these pictures from the #Administration section to the #List section because it makes more sense to be in that section"
• revert by 117, replying "a large section of white space makes no sense"

Diff set #4 (March 15):

• photos moved by IP
• revert by me noting "per 117Avenue's numerous recent edit summaries"
• third warning by me with explanation why the edits are being reverted as the editor appears to not be reviewing our edit summaries

Diff set #5 (March 22):

• existing photos removed by IP
• revert by me for of unexplained removal of content
• new photos added by IP
• revert by me noting "Revert move of images against consensus"
• fourth warning by me
• new photos added again by Merlin the 2nd
• reverted by 117

Fairly obvious that these two are the same editor by reviewing their contributions - Merlin and IP. A check user may not necessarily confirm however as it appears all of Merlin's edits are mobile edits whereas the IP's are not.

Anyway, this(these) editor(s) are: not leaving edit summaries (with the exception of one); not reading edit summaries left by those reverting the edits; and not heeding warnings on either of their talk pages (Merlin has received two warnings from me regarding edits elsewhere). Further, the IP did not heed the explanation I provided on the IP's talk page with my third warning, while Merlin has been blocked once before for similar disruptive behaviour.

I'd revert the latest edit by Merlin, but because I reverted the IP earlier in the day with two separate reverts, I'm at risk of 3RR. Hwy43 (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I've reverted List of cities in Alberta once more. Merlin the 2nd has also been editing Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada and various provinces without explanation. 117Avenue (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Hopefully Merlin/the IP will see the ANI notices on their talk pages, review this and see how troublesome the edits have been. Hwy43 (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: Merlin has made controversial edits to Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada (see history), which has resulted in mass reverts of edits at provincial articles by myself and Moxy as well. The reverters there have not yet placed any warnings on Merlin's talk page. Hwy43 (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats by Llinkster

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.

---

Llinkster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest account to appear out of thin air and attempt to hack away at Brenda Dickson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has been a source of disruption and legal threats here and via OTRS in the past. This is the latest: Monday morning I will be contacting my attorney, Eugene Moore is you should continue to put up things that are untrue that have nothing to do with my career or my accomplishments of work. The owner is probably the subject since they can't make up their mind as to whether they should refer to her in the first or third person. That said, the article does need updating with some of the information they added in today's ~50 revisions, and the new image they uploaded should probably stay - I'll be fixing it up in the next couple of days. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Gave editor a COI warning and an NLT block. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 23 March 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:Heritoctavus, tendentious editing, and now a legal threat

Background: on 21 March, I blocked Heritoctavus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 31 hours for edit warring at Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. His/her edits there included striking the results and replacing them with "disputed" and other edits that suggested advancing a particular point of view. Three hours later, 137.122.64.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made similar edits to the same article. Since the IP had been warned, and given the similarity of the edits, I blocked the IP for 31 hours as well. I noted in my block message the similarity of the edits,[36] but the similarity was weak enough, in my opinion, that I did not do anything to directly sanction Heritoctavus for sockpuppeteering.

Heritoctavus got the notification of that message, since I linked to his/her username, and demanded that I apologize for the comments.[37] I left a lengthy response explaining my position and that I had noted the similarity but not to the level of requiring any action against him.[38]. Subsequently, I was called "hopeless" in a reply by Heritoctavus, who also said "I sincerely, honestly hope that you live in a big city where, for example, for example only, there is a psychiatrist."[39] I chose to not respond to that remark.

Subsequently, his block has expired. He's returned to the same editing conduct at Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles and other ladies' skating articles.

Most problematically, he's left another demand for an apology at my talk page, stating "IF YOU DON'T TAKE PROPER ACTION, IT AMOUNTS TO THE SELF-VIOLATION OF WIKIPEDIA'S [TERMS OF SERVICE] AND WILLFUL FRAUDULENT ANNOUNCE OF IT TO THE PUBLIC, WHICH MAY CAUSE LITIGATION."[40]

Since it's now risen to the level of an implied legal threat, I'm requesting an independent administrator to come in and address this situation. —C.Fred (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Implied it may be, but the wording of his statement on your talk page is a clear legal threat. Blocked. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I see this every week. Why do people think this over-the-top, all caps approach will get them the result they want? I can only assume it is immaturity and an inability to control one's impulses. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It's the G.I.F.T.. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Appropriate respect for gf IP contributors and their work

I politely requested an experienced editor to show due respect to fellow gf contributors, including anonymous IPs, some of whom may actually be new editors (see "Flanno" [41]). In response I was obliquely accused [42] (cf [43]) of sock puppetry. My polite but firm rebuttal [44] has been deliberately ignored [45]. This passive-aggressive approach to anonymous IP contribution seems seriously wrong to me.
86.169.210.196 (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have my own suspicions, which I can not prove that you have edited previously as you are too experienced for a 10 day old IP editor. Also, it's my choice whether I wish to interact with you on my Talk page and I don't. So end of story. Goodbye. JMHamo (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

In case you weren't altogether clear about what sock puppetry is and is not, I provided a link [46] to WP:SOCK. Please note: To protect their privacy, editors who are editing while logged out are never required to disclose their usernames on wiki. 86.169.210.196 (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Especially if your account has blocked from editing. When I have enough evidence I will consider filing a SPI about you, but at the moment I respectfully request you make no more contact with me. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I have never been blocked. 86.169.210.196 (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Should we AGF? Of course. Is it extremely hard to AGF when an editor edits from an IP, while clearly having detailed knowledge about the ins-and-outs of how Wikipedia works? Of course. If you've edited from an account or different IP address(es) before then simply say that, you don't need to reveal any more information, and the first assumption won't be (or shouldn't be) that you're merely block evading. GiantSnowman 15:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you GiantSnowman for the simple and helpful suggestion, which I will certainly bear in mind in the future (and I sometimes do indeed explain that I prefer to edit as an IP). In the present case, given a) the constructive character of the edits I made to the page in question, with the inclusion of descriptive/explanatory edit summaries [47][48][49][50][51][52][53], and b) my constructive engagement on talk pages both of the article and of the user I cannot identify any conceivable reason why it should have been hard simply to AGF, irrespective of my editing history, IP or otherwise.

Moreover, I was not the only IP being inappropriately reverted. Since I believe it can be potentially harmful to revert constructive contributions from IPs who may be new editors without even providing an explanation in the edit summary (e.g. [54]) I explained my concerns to the user [55]. This was followed by the insinuation of sock puppetry [56]. I find this sort of sequence of events disturbing not just for myself but for Wikipedia's broad contributorship. 86.169.210.196 (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• WP:IP addresses are not people might be worth a read. We try to treat IPs as equal, but it is often human nature to not. Policy can limit people's actions, but not their hearts. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. I don't think the sort of arguments outlined in that essay should be considered a justification for the sort of approach under consideration in this thread. 86.169.210.196 (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not justifying, I'm just saying that human nature is what it is, and we can't change that. No matter what policy is in place, or what an admin says to someone, there will always exist a degree of prejudice due to the nature of the beast. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Then do you think this sort of an approach from an experienced editor is somehow inevitable? I don't (cf this interaction). Which is why I've raised the matter in this thread. 86.169.210.196 (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Misleading album pages/Possible sock

Resolved

Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like User:GagsGagsGags is back with a new sock User:VasteKlantBijSportpaleis and is continuing to create fictional albums which by-pass new page patrol because they seem legit. Could the The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour (album) and The Beyoncé World Tour pages be deleted and this account blocked? The report I filed in August 2013 about this user might be useful to admins unfamiliar with their backstory. —JennKR | ☎ 16:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and dealt with this -- Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Ew, that one again. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:69.249.66.126

Vandalism-only account, disrupting editing.--Darius (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• WP:AIV is the right place to report vandalism after they have had 3 or 4 warnings in a short period of time. That said, that is a dynamic IP and they only have one edit in the last year, so a warning is all that is needed at this point. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Republic of Crimea (country) merger RfC closure

Please see the thread at WP:AN#Reverting merge about the short-lived independence of Crimea as a country. Need third party administrators for a review of the closure. I thought I'd post here as it seems people pay more attention to this part of the board. RGloucester — ☎ 01:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden Controversy

Hi, I'm having problems with an editor on the Dorje Shugden Controversy page. I have tried to improve the introduction of the article which is at the moment very one sided and certainly not WP:NPOV but although I've proposed my change on the talk page and it contains WP:RS I've had my changes reverted repeatedly by Heicth who refuses to offer constructive comments or engage in a collaborative effort to improve the article. He's stopping me from editing. What can be done please? Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Why haven't you taken up my suggestion to go to WP:DRN? Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Because Heicth has been particularly obstructive and objects to me trying to edit the article in any way even with WP:RS. I have tried to collaborate but he refuses. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and such freedom is important. Truthsayer62 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The manipulation of Wikipedia by New Kadampa cult editors is explained on the Talk:New Kadampa Tradition page and the user page of Kt66. While 3 users (Kt66, Chris Fynn and myself) were patiently discussing, agreeing and editing the article in a careful manner, Truthsayer62 deleted most of the academic material in the article. Also note the shenanigans of other New Kadampa editors. Now on the Talk:Dorje Shugden Controversy talk page, he just creates new threads to obscure previous discussion while completely lying about the nature of his edits. If this user has his own way (despite recent consensus), we will see the deletion of academic references and the use of NKT blogs as references. Heicth (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I rest my case. Heicth is uncooperative. He clearly doesn't want to improve the article. The other editors he mentions are sympathetic to his view of the controversy so of course they are going to agree. How is it possible to improve the article with alternative reliably sourced view points when one editor guards the article and refuses to allow the inclusion of material that he doesn't agree with?Truthsayer62 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing decisions operate by consensus. If the discussion is between you (1 person) and those of a different opinion (more than 1), at best, it will be a stalemate. The best thing you can do is go to the article talk page and persuasively argue why your edits are an improvement. Win other editors over with your logical argument and reliable sources. Consensus rules and if, should you gain consensus, an editor still is obstinate, the next step is dispute resolution WP:DRN, not AN/I. This isn't a forum to come to get editors you disagree to change their minds or get blocked. Content disputes get resolved on article talk pages and, should that fail, dispute resolution forums. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Liz, does it seem right that one person on one side of a controversy should aggressively protect an article from the inclusion of WP:RS that would improve the article and make it more balanced, fair and accurate? I'm not being protectionist, my edit is fair and includes both sides of the controversy, stating views that I myself do not accept. If it takes days and days of effort to make one change to a Wikipedia article because of one editor's intransigence, people will stop taking an interest in Wikipedia and the quality of the articles will suffer as a result. For one person to block change cannot be fair and to be lone voice of one side of the controversy makes getting consensus extremely difficult. The article remains biased and inaccurate while one person protects that inaccuracy. Heicth is insulting and refuses to collaborate or change the article. Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Truthsayer62, for better or worse, Wikipedia admins do not make conduct decisions on what you or I (or anyone) thinks is "right" but what WP policy and guidelines support or forbid. I agree that editors shouldn't own articles and prevent other editors from contributing but unless there is disruptive editing going on (like edit warring or personal attacks), gaining consensus for your proposed changes on the article talk page is best way to go because you'll have that support backing your change. That advice goes for any editor. If you want to push the issue further, you can launch an WP:RfC but those only tend to resolve disputes if there is a fair amount of editors participating (say, a dozen) and I'm not sure how many people are working on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, I understand. At the moment there are only really three other editors on the article, all go whom share a particular view of this controversy. What is the procedure if an individual or even a group of people are attached to their views and actively oppose changes to an article? What if consensus cannot be gained or edits are blocked? Does that mean that the article has to remain one sided? Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks once again Liz. By the way, Truthsayer62 is again lying. It is not just me opposing him. User:CFynn just addressed him on the article's talk page.Heicth (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

After Liz's comment, Truthsayer62 is now pretending to be a new user, March22nd, (same specific argument about introduction, making a big deal of how to sign, providing an edit summary for talk page comments) or brought in this fellow NKT editor. Come on Wikipedia, ban these guys like the Scientologists were banned. Even Truthsayer62 admitted there is consensus. Heicth (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Heicth - If you have good reason to believe March22nd is a sock puppet of Truthsayer62 and that these two accounts are being are being abusively operated by the same person - then you can report it to Sockpuppet investigations - but so far the new user March22nd has only made one edit - and that on an article talk page. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a false accusation. I am not March22nd. Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban Proposal

The manipulation of Wikipedia by the New Kadampa cult is explained on the user page of Kt66 (a great editor on Wikipedia). Many other editors have struggled for years with cultists like Truthsayer62 (for example see the New Kadampa Tradition page). I documented my struggles on this ANI page. If Truthsayer62 continues with his strategy of tiring out his opponents, despite Wikipedia policies on reliable sources, consensus etc., we will continue to see the deletion of academic references and the use of nonsense material. While most people view Wikipedia as an encyclopedic resource, Truthsayer62 views Wikipedia as just another NKT blog. I propose that Truthsayer62 be banned from any topic related to Dorje Shugden and the New Kadampa Tradition, which sadly seems to be his life's work according to both his user page and edit history. Heicth (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

if you are really in favour of reliably sourced material and neutral edits, why did you block my reliably sourced and neutral edit? There's nothing in the introduction of the Dorje Shugden Controversy article that explains what the controversy is because it's full of one sided information on why Dorje Shugden is a spirit. It doesn't explain the other point of view that is the other side of the controversy. Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes there are numerous problems, and have been for years, with the articles on Dorje Shugden, the Dorje Shugden controversy, and the New Kadampa Tradition. There are now quite a number of very reputable academic sources on these subjects available, and I think good balanced articles could be written relying only on such sources. However it seems these articles will inevitably be edited by zealous devotees of Dorje Shugden amd/or the NKT to bring these articles as close as they can to their own POV.

Chris Fynn (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't analyzed the article edit history, Heicth, but it seems like Truthsayer62 is saying that he can't make edits that "stick", without being reverted, so I question how much influence he has had on the articles in question. I think a topic ban at this stage is not warranted if you are reverting most of his edits. JMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I agree with Chris Fynn obviously. And the comments of Kt66 elsewhere. Heicth (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching these articles for years and edit warring, sockpuppetry and so on have been going on all that time on the Dorje Shugden, Dorje Shugden controversy, New Kadampa Tradition and several other related articles — carried on by apparent NKT and WSS members on one side, and their detractors (some probably ex-members of those organisations) on the other ~ with the occasional uninvolved but interested editor thrown in. Each side in these edit wars has their own partisan agenda and seemingly nearly infinite zeal and time to spend. Frankly to me it looks unlikely that NPOV will ever be achieved. Chris Fynn (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty pessimistic. So are you for this topic ban or not?Heicth (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

These are all false accusations making clear that Heicth is aggressive and non-cooperative. He won't accept any edit I propose as he is simply trying to ban a neutral point of view, now by trying to ban me. He has reverted every edit, including the ones I proposed on the talk page and asked for comments on. This is unreasonable. Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris Fynn already addressed your claims of "neutral point of view" on the talk page. And you are a WP:SPA, by your own admission on your user page. Neither of the "two" users, Truthsayer62 or March22nd (who are obviously linked) seem to understand Chris Fynn's post on the talk page. March22nd for example keeps pushing a primary source written by Kelsang Gyatso. And Truthsayer62 on this ANI page falsely keeps harping about "neutral". Truthsayer62's view of "neutral" is deleting academic information from Kapstein, Dreyfus and Thurman. What other behavior is necessary before someone is topic banned? Heicth (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Johnbod attacking everyone at Talk:Yixian glazed pottery luohans

Per WP:BOOMERANG, I'll take the hit on this and I'm totally cool with that, but an admin needs to jump in at Talk:Yixian glazed pottery luohans, where Johnbod's been ad hominem attacking any user (a 3O volunteer as well as 2 longterm editors aside from me) who have dared to tried to fix his article. I bit back as hard as I can, myself, but the other editors have been overly patient with these constant snipes. I don't personally mind that Johnbod has now taken to wikistalking my talkpage, kind of a badge of honor for me, but he's gotten so bad another longterm editor now wants his userpage deleted. That's too far, and as I say I am willing to take my own hit just to have an admin look at this.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it would be nice if an admin could remove the gross personal attack (with no content relevant to the article) on me by another editor (diff), which Kintetsubuffalo has twice reverted the removal of (once and twice). He is I think no stranger on this page (ANI I mean). He started this off by removing two quoted words, referenced at the end of the sentence, which it became clear he had not noticed, from a DYK then on the main page. When I saw this some 12 hours later, I reverted with an explanatory edit summary. He then added two cite tags (for what was already cited) with an abusive edit summary, and continue to edit war and rant on the talk page despite being told many times on the article's and his talk pages that they were referenced at the end of the sentence, and always had been. User:Andy Dingley then joined in, also repeatedly demanding the refs that were already there, and soon joining the matter to his long-standing crusade against Wikimedia UK with a purely personal attack. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think people bringing up the WMUK stuff helped anything but where did Andy Dingley demand refs? I only see comments that the location of the refs and the wording was confusing. Nil Einne (talk)`

• es: tag cn - if this is so obvious, it will be easy for the most knowledgeable editor to add a citation to the appropriate existing ref and resolve this issue amicably
• re-adds cite tags, with es: rm peacock tag. Sourced statements further down indicate that these terms aren't unexpected or unreasonable, merely that we still need to cite their provenance)
• reverts to restore citation needed tags
• Lengthy response on his talk page, in response to my pleas that he actually look at the article; "Now I think they're probably fine to be there, but they should have cites close enough to them to support those specific terms, if they're being used as direct quotes like this, contra to PEACOCK. I believe that you are able to add such cites. I am not. The source ref is apparently an hour-long YouTube video, which I simply don't have time to watch, but I believe that you already have..." - he is confusing the next ref (to the lecture on You Tube), at the end of the next sentence, because he just hasn't looked with any degree of attention, but continues to revert, and at the end of this diff begins his personal attacks.

Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Admins, why is there no action against this editor? They think they are better than others and think it is acceptable to talk down to everyone. Lesion (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not resolved. This editor seems to have a nice habit of searching peoples' user pages for any information which they can then try and use to push others down. It is actually disgraceful behavior since this editor is supposedly representing WMUK. Lesion (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps there's been no administrative action because there have been so few specifics offered. The opening post by Kintetsubuffalo provides zero diffs. The only link is to the talk page generally. They don't even provide a link to their alleged misconduct. Other admins may be willing to dig deeper, but, me, I got distracted by the pretty pictures in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not really involved in that issue above. I was taken aback by the user's tone on WT:MED, which to my understanding was entirely unprovoked. About a day later I decided to look through the user's contribs to get a better idea of their behavior, and the pottery talk page pasted above was the first thing there. I suggested, in good faith that they might be having a bad week and are snapping at people, however from the responses to this suggestion, I conclude that this is normal behavior for them. The incident left me a bit disillusioned that editors are apparently happy to search through user pages just so they can try and talk down to others, for no good reason. Lesion (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Just glancing at the article talk page and user talk page (I'm not an expert in Chinese ceramics) this looks like a content dispute that accelerated due to incivility. We have very, very experienced editors here and perhaps they do not like their edits to be challenged. The only bad behavior I see here is impatience which doesn't exactly violate WP guidelines. Maybe a reminder is in order that WP is a collaboration involving editors with different knowledges and experiences and we should try to cooperate rather than ridicule those who challenge us? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It is more than that. In a separate incident, the user randomly decided to search through my user page and then talk down to me. They think they are better than others and they think they can speak to people however they want. By your inaction, you are sending them a clear message that that behavior is completely OK. Well it is not OK. Suggest a token 24 hour ban so either they get the message or there can be a formal log in their journey to permanent ban which this attitude will inevitably lead to in the fullness of time. Lesion (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Complaint regarding User:KageTora

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 a complaint about User:KageTora. It regards a request for a Chinese translation as my Chinese is only at a lower-intermeidate level here, however User:KageTora responded with a deliberate wrong translation full of swear words and rude connotations. Proof can be seen in a google translation here. I am not an admin, but is this a blockade offence or a worth a warning at least? --Holbrook West Parish (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

My Chinese is zero, so I'd really like somebody who can read it to comment here. (Heimstern, where are you?) I don't trust Google Translate very much, but still, it surely couldn't have pulled that lot out of thin air. If Google's translation is even remotely accurate, I believe the user needs a shot across the bow of some kind: a block or at the very least (considering they're a contributor of many years with a clean block log) a sharp nursery word and perhaps a time-off from the Reference Desk. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC).

Bish, I think the likelihood of an editor or admin who is fluent in Chinese wandering through AN/I in the next 24 hours is pretty low (unless Heimstern responds to your shout-out). If you have doubts, I'm sure you can offer a fair warning based on what you've seen. If it is truly a dire situation, that response can serve as a follow-up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait a bit. The cow isn't on the ice, as the more colourful of my countrymen have it, and we're far from completely lacking in Chinese-proficient editors and admins. Heim isn't editing currently, but I've e-mailed him. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC).

@Anna Frodesiak: might be a good candidate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Philg88 is your best choice. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, in picking up the ping. The boxed text in the next section is a reasonably accurate translation of what the Chinese at the help desk page says. I would class it more as a rant than a personal attack on anyone. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 11:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, there do seem to be some rather rude words there, as well as some general sarcasm. But I wasn't aware that it was appropriate to use the reference desk as a general translation board, anyway, especially not for something that looks pretty thoroughly commercial, so I'm having a hard time thinking this would be very actionable. (To be fair, my Chinese isn't at the level I can distinguish very well just how bad the language is.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Heim, thanks for commenting, but as long as we have a Reference Desk of course people are going to use it for all sorts of things. They may deserve to be told they're in the wrong place, but not to be trolled like that, as long as they themselves aren't merely trolling. I'll write a somewhat sharp comment to KageTora to that effect tomorrow. I'm just dropping off to sleep here. Bishonen | talk 01:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

Just read through that rant and it is certainly not the most civil comment. Translates to

Is your baby 3-5 years old? a fat fucking asshole (the words are somewhat open to translation, but this is fairly commonly used) who wears extra large diapers? If so, please send me a friend request and receive plenty of spam. Share with your friends and have them forever hate you for sharing their email details so they can receive even more junk mail.

Blackmane (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a reference desk, not a place to come to get free, commercial (!) translations from people who do this for a living. I did give a warning to the OP, with words to that effect. And you admin people need to get out a bit more often. You remind me of Californian schoolgirls in their little clique. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be fair to warn an OP, but it's not fair to pull a Hungarian Phrasebook-style prank on him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did make sure the OP knew that the translation offered may not be to his/her satisfaction, and the person in question appears to have done the necessary checking up, which I assumed everyone with common sense would have done, hence this little conversation we are having here. Wikipedia is a not-for-profit organization of volunteer editors. We don't give out freebies, when we would normally get paid in real life. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 07:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Plain speaking is required—if a "go away" reply is needed for a ref-desk question, give the reply in a manner that is civil and understandable. You do not have to agree with what has been said here, but you do need to agree to not repeat anything like that at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

We give away a free encyclopedia -- Amazon currently lists the 2010 Britannica for $7,599.99. [57]. (Reverting close by Medeis.) If an editor does not wish to reply to a reference desk request, they should simply not reply to a reference desk request. NE Ent 11:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If I didn't do what i did, somebody else would come along and offer a faithful translation, and then we get people thinking it's fine to ask us for translations for whatever for their own commercial/financial gain, while there are people in this world who do this sort of stuff for a living (myself included). I do not agree that I have done anything wrong. Sure, maybe I could have just put a post up saying "We do not offer translations for commercial/financial gain, being a free encyclopaedia, and not a translation service." But I didn't. I did leave a message which should, by anyone who can speak English, be understandable as a reference to the fact that the translation was not entirely faithful to the original, and just as I hoped, the OP decided to check - I was perfectly hoping the OP would do that, before posting the 'translation' online. This is a case of AGF, which I guess we could change to APHCS - 'Assume People Have Common Sense'. Issue dropped, or are we going to continue with this nonsense? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What you should have done is say "this is not suitable for Wikipedia" and directed them to Google Translate or similar, instead of basically WP:BITEing in such a rude manner. Despite you and your chum Medeis trying to dodge this issue, you need to realize that your behavior has not been acceptable. GiantSnowman 11:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

On Sundays, I run a fruit & vegetable stall in the market. How about popping by one day and having a bag of free apples, or something, while you watch my children starve? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Absurd attack on wonderful contributor. μηδείς (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Medeis. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The question has been asked elsewhere, anyway. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:58, 23 March 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.

Nyttend Are you saying KageTora's behavior is acceptable? NE Ent 13:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. No administrative intervention is going to occur. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC

Not what I asked. Not all issues raised at this community discussion board will necessarily be resolved by use of admin tools; in fact, it's frequently better if they aren't. That does not mean it's appropriate to prematurely close a discussion prior to consensus being reached. So I'll repeate the question: is KageTora's behavior acceptable: not following the WP:SPEAKENGLISH guideline and engaging in personal attacks contrary to WP:NPA? NE Ent 14:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

How, in Heaven's name, can this have been considered a personal attack? Anyone with any common sense would know that what I wrote was a warning - albeit cryptic and all but incomprehensible to the likes of yourself - a warning saying, "When you are running a business, don't try to get a free translation for advertising, from a website that uses volounteer contributors to make an encyclopaedia. I have no idea who you are, who you think you are, or who you want to be, but what I did was well within the realms of common sense. Close this discussion, because I am really sick to death of people who just type to make themselves feel superior. This is bordering on trolling. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 14:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the standard isn't "common sense" but civility. If editors at the Reference Desks give jokey or misleading answers to questions, their usefulness to readers is nil. This was a case where you clearly should have just not responded instead of posting a snarky, bad translation to make some kind of point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid the ref desks are saturated with jokes and ownership issues. That's why so many editors have been driven from them. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I brought up problems I saw at the Reference Desks here once but it got no response. I think every editor has their editing niche and no one was interested in ousting troublesome editors who comment on every question (whether they know what they are talking about or not) or who provide opinions instead of factual answers, based on Wikipedia articles. I agree it's a mess that needs an overhaul. But that requires interested editors willing to give their time and attention to making that happen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh. GiantSnowman 20:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • To me that looks like a violation of WP:SOAP and WP:NPA. That's definitely not acceptable behavior. -- Atama頭 17:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User refuses to respond

On the article Odesza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which I created, I had a bit of information has to how the duo got their name. The user RuhiAndre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted it. I undid his edit, explaining that I had listed a source for the information, and unless he had a counter-source the info should stay. He has ignored me and gone on to delete the info 3 times. I also have my suspicions that he is close to the subject, as his only contributions to this site were trying to get the article "Odesza" created for nearly a year at this point. His requests had been denied repeatedly, but he kept trying religiously. Now, after the article has been created (by me), he claims to know things only someone close to the subject would know, as he made the claim that the info was wrong, but could not prove it.

On the edit history page I specifically outlined why the bit of information could not be removed, as the information had a source and he had no counter-source except for his own word. I also posted on his talk page days ago my suspicions of him being close to subject, but I have apparently been ignored. He has been extremely unresponsive.

I think he should be banned from editing that article, as it has become a nuisance. --Bathes (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any attempt by you to engage at the article talk page, and your one-sentence note at their talk page didn't have much in the way of good faith. How about asking, politely, for them to explain why they're making that edit and if they have any reliable sources that you might not be aware of? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Rather than constantly reverting RuhiAndre (which is edit warring, regardless of which of you has the more 'correct' position), you ought to begin by engaging them on their talk page or the article's. Although you did explain yourself in the edit summary not all editors read edit summaries, and a proper discussion can only really be had on a talk page. If they don't respond to that, it might make sense to seek outside help again. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bathes: I strongly suggest that you read WP:BRD which covers the kind of situation you find yourself in now. I think it will helpful for you. -- Atama頭 17:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Newbie running riot with twinkle

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.

---

Newbie running riot with twinkle generating dozens of inappropriate and/or irrelevant tags. Warned & asked to stop, but is powering on at more than 1 edit per minute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AvNiElNi-nA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AvNiElNi-nA

Pdfpdf (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I had stop doing that. AvNiElNi-nA (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a clear sock of User:Smauritius! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I had stop doing that. - Thank you. Now please go back and undo all of your edits that have placed Notability and BLP sources tags. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Krimuk90 please present sock puppetry evidence at WP:SPI…i had been watching the above account since creation which is closely after the last checkuser sweep. User:Hell in a Bucket — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.240.237 (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at the contribution history and reverted a few. Although some might barely be justified, many of those are accompanied by tags that aren't, and he has messed up a lot of articles. Anyone want to do a mass revert? Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

He's been blocked for a week. Dougweller (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, too many articles were messed up – someone should do a mass revert. Mojoworker (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What a mess. Let me go and spend some time taking care of this too. I have some free time, so lets make use of it. → Call me Hahc21 07:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Mass revert done. → Call me Hahc21 07:36, 23 March 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.

Well there you go! I complained about a nuisance. Next thing I see it's changed topic and subject area to edit-waring - totally unrelated to the nuisance edits. And then the guy's banned for edit-waring. Well, yes, in those circumstances, that's the appropriate chain-of-events. But they were/are completely independent of, and unrelated to, the nuisance edits.
My point? (Points?) (Yes, I'm a pedant.) They are two separate issues/incidents. Putting them in the same item implies they address the same issue. They don't.
Who cares? Probably only me ... Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson

Uncooperative editing by Locke Cole

Continuously defiant edit warring at Scarlett Johansson, despite warnings. Editors have asked him to respect the talk page, but he simplyignores out of spite. edit history of Johansson. Rusted AutoParts 04:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks to be a content disupte. Locke Cole is adding in referenced information about Scarlett Johansson's pregnancy, Hulabaloo Wolfowitz and Rusted Auto Parts are removing it, and replacing it with the hidden text <!-- Please do not add pregnancy until there's confirmation. These sources are going by reports, not from anything the actress or her rep said. --> .The two sources in question http://collider.com/avengers-2-scarlett-johansson-pregnant/ and http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/scarlett-johansson-pregnancy-delay-filming-avengers-sequel-report-article-1.1710262 are used to support Locke Cole's entry. I can't see collider.com, but nydailynews.com is reporting that she is indeed pregnant, however, the wording is carefully written and it looks to be tabloidish. Perhaps the article should be locked while this is sorted out.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   18:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson

Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs) has been talked to, repeatedly, about imposing his own higher standards on article sources that policy does NOT support (currently we're arguing over at the talk page for Scarlett Johansson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). He was blocked for six months, and only after insisting his behavior would change was he finally unblocked after a month. We've been around and around on the issue of article sources and while I admit to being frustrated, I find myself wondering if he's simply not able to understand, and if his recent unblock was a good idea given the unwillingness to accept that he alone does not get to decide what is an acceptable source, especially when the community here already has WP:RS which goes into detail on what is and is not a reliable source.

A few months back we had a similar issue over at Avengers: Age of Ultron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which ultimately ended up with the debated statement (complete with sources) going in. But not until weeks of disruption, revert warring, and so forth. Now he's engaging in personal attacks, saying "It's evident Locke is still burned up by the Age of Ultron spat [...]". Truthfully I'm stunned at the amount of resistance being made over something so well-sourced. Seriously, if it were something more contentious with only one weak source, I'd understand this level of resistance. But we have dozens of sources, and just in the past week an additional source which would (in my view) seem to cement the issue into the realm of indisputable fact. Despite this he insists on "confirmation" (whatever that even means) beyond what our sources provide (which is not what we do here).

Given the rise in personal attacks, the attempt to bully me by threatening to bring me to AN/I (which upon arriving here, I see he's already posted a notice about me further above, without informing me on my talk page as required), and the apparent inability to learn and follow our policies and guidelines as it relates to verifiability, no original research and sourcing, I felt the need to bring it here for a wider discussion and hopefully some kind of long-term solution. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The sources appear to be tabloids. Let's think outside the box for a minute here: I'm going to assume that you follow Scarlet Johansson's career, etc. What is your sense of the veracity of the rumors? I saw one source photo which alleged to show a "baby bump", but there wasn't one. So is this on the level or is just a false rumor like it was 2 or 3 years ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to bring the debate about the sources here so much as the behavioral issues Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs) is displaying. But suffice it to say, WP:NOTTRUTH (an extension of WP:V) covers this: if we can verify that our sources say what our article is saying, that's all we really care about. You'll note that in the edit I tried to make (which has been subsequently reverted by RAP) that I used the language "[...] reported [...]", which is us using our voice to say that this is simply what our sources are saying (not that we're claiming it to be true). The scrutiny of pictures of actresses for "baby bumps" is original research, and not allowed here. Again, verifiability, NOT truth. We have a dozen sources all saying this, it's not for us to decide whether or not it's true, our sources have already done that. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's a legitimate discussion as to whether reports of the pregnancy should go in to the article, but the issue really isn't behavior it's a lack of consensus and low participation in the discussion. Both editors would do better to focus on the topic at hand and perhaps get additional input rather making personal comments about each other and rehashing old disputes. If raising the issue here doesn't bring sufficient attention, then a rfc might be useful. NE Ent 15:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds more like WP:BLPN should be tried. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It's sourced by E!, which is owned by NBCUniversal, so I don't think there's much of case it's not a reliable source for Entertainment news. NE Ent 15:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

BLP still requires a consensus on the sourcing and how it is presented. So, get the consensus, if there is a "legitimate discussion" to be had. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC) As a side issue, pregnancy is entertainment? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

BLP doesn't require a consensus prior to editing, only if there's a dispute, but then that's not much different from a non-BLP issue. The problem here is, does consensus consider views of people who aren't applying policy correctly (competence is required)? I mean, you have a few editors on the talk page there insisting on "confirmation" which is above and beyond what the community has put down at WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR (and to a lesser extent, WP:NPOV). I'm beginning to lean towards ignoring objections that are based on personal requirements instead of site-wide policy, as they're both unhelpful (no effort to compromise exists) and set a terrible precedent for other articles ("if I don't like the site-wide policy, I can enact my own personal views on the article talk page!").

Our sources say she is pregnant (the initial sources said "reportedly", but more recently we've seen interviews with folks involved in productions she's acting in saying things like the pregnancy hasn't affected production in any major way, etc), it's a BLP issue without sources to be sure, but irrelevant since we do have sources and a lot of them... —Locke Cole • t • c 17:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a BLP issue because it is a BLP and there is an editing dispute about the quality and presentation of sourcing -- BLP thus requires DR to sort that out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Normal Wikipedia practice requires consensus, and Talk:Scarlett Johansson exists to provide the forum to achieve that. The special provisions of BLP for "contentious" material surely do not apply to whether a 29 year old woman is pregnant or not? The E! report [58] is just shy of three weeks old, and there's been no retraction, or denial, so there's not particularly wrong with adding it per the special BLP provisions. Whether it is encyclopedic or not is, of course, a matter for discussion. NE Ent 17:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It's far from a mechanical yes/no or a black/white issue. BLP for good or ill gives a wider play to editorial discretion, privacy, dignity. It raises issues like 'what if this rumor is wrong' 'how will it look, if tomorrow it is disproven' or 'because of the privacy issue, this may remain forever, unconfirmed.' Pregnancy, its occurrence, and its termination is not a matter of privacy? Not a matter of dignity? Not a matter of contention? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(Above comment edited to remove leading space that messed up display on mobile devices. --NellieBly (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC))

I consider it relevant for individuals notable in part because of their appearance (e.g. Actors, dancers). I'd be much more inclined to not include for women prominent for other reasons (e.g. Mary Barra). Taken the to extreme, we could argue that there should be no "Personal life" section in any biography, but longstanding practice is Wikipedia does include that stuff. Additionally, we routinely include reliably sourced predictions about the future that may turn out to be incorrect (e.g. Climate change). NE Ent 18:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, sometimes it might be "relevant" sometimes not. And saying we cannot have personal life sections, if we do not report this matter is far from reasonable. In the end, under policy, "the routine" is no replacement individualized, considered judgment in such things. A discussion, which this board is ill-suited for. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems fairly self-contradictory to continue to discuss something on a board while claiming the board is not suited for it. NE Ent 18:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Not in the least, since I am not the one who raised the particulars of the sourcing here, but kept to what the policy considerations and issues are, and the appropriate forums to pursue them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC) This is a fine place to discuss whether BLP applies to a BLP. It does in the many ways I outlined. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Suggestion. Table this discussion for a few months. If nature holds true to form, I suspect there will be more sources speaking about a "bump". If they don't, well.....Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please note that the above used "table" as used in US English (to delay discussion) as apposed to UK English (to discuss immediately). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting -- so what would go in the uk portion of {{engvar|en-uk=???|en-us=table}}? NE Ent 17:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• You'd use "shelve", and you'd do that by appointing a Royal Commission. Thincat (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• This makes me smile. Can't say I've done that a lot lately when I come here. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This seems eerily familiar to a [discussion] that got really heated seven months ago over what daily newspapers and magazines can be used for reliable sources. There were some editors who didn't want to accept any magazine focused on entertainment news as a reliable source and so this might be comparable to wanting a "higher standard". The link included is to a WP:RSN conversation but I believe there was also an RfC on the subject but I can't locate it now. From what I remember, entertainment or popular magazines can be used as sources if they include a named source (and not "friends say" type of attribution) but I would read through the discussion carefully because this ground has been covered at least once before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

But surely the only daily newspapers that would cover Scarlett Johansson's personal life would be tabloids. Let's face it, she does not do anything notable enough to have her personal life covered in major international newspapers such as the Financial Times.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

To add perspective, hopefully: It's not a matter of questioning whether entertainment-news outlets are reliable sources, but of what they're basing their reporting on this in this case. Let's not forget, WP:RS isn't about the outlets themselves but about those outlets' reporting on specific things. In this case, the pregnancy story is all based on anonymous claims, i.e. RUMORS. Let's remember, this is not the first time anonymous sources claimed she was pregnant? Here, read this from People: "Scarlett Johansson: How a Pregnancy Rumor Can Start". Until there's confirmation, an encyclopedia — which has higher standards than daily / weekly journalism — does not claim something as definitive, inarguable fact. There is no deadline. Our job is to be right, not first. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTTRUTH. Your assessment of the sources' sources is original research. It's one thing to look at, for example, a grocery store tabloid and say it's not reliable for use here. It's another thing entirely to look at something like Time magazine and say "well it's not telling us who their sources are" (which we don't, and shouldn't, care about in the first place). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You absolutely should care about sourcing, especially BLP's. While sourcing is a requirement, it is not a guaranteed admission ticket. Regardless of sourcing, if your gut feeling is that the fact may be shaky, you should not include it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It is my recollection from the conversation I linked to (which spread over several additional talk pages and noticeboards), Wikipedia doesn't condemn "tabloids" but "tabloid journalism". Some people participating in the discussion wanted to have a set list of newspapers and magazines that would be considered "tabloid" and would be unacceptable but a) it proved impossible to come up with an agreed-upon list of what a tabloid is and isn't and b) as I said, WP condemns a style of reporting, not specific sources of news. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If we took the word of entertainment news (even that published by branches of supposedly reliable sources lmike NBC), we'd have to add a recent pregnancy section to the article of virtually every woman of note, up to and including Queen Elizabeth II. What passes for a baby bump these days could be anything from a good meal to perimenstrual bloating. Until the woman herself announces her pregnancy, we should not mention anything about it. And we should never, and I mean NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, allude to pregnancy termination without a direct quote from the woman in question as reported in a fully reliable source and not a tab. Good God: imagine the shitstorm that would follow even the slightest hint that a notable woman had an abortion - now imagine the real emotional harm we would be causing to her if she had been trying to conceive and miscarried. Imagine if some Eric Rudolph type decided she had to die for her "sin". --NellieBly (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you post an example of a claim confirmed by E! (or People) that a woman was pregnant that turned out not to be true? NE Ent 18:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruption

Okay, the back and forth continues, but the editor in question still refuses to acknowledge policy or guideline on the topic (and is effectively encouraging others to join him in ignoring policy/guideline). Is there some point where wasting other editors' time because you simply don't like something is considered disruptive? Because I think we're quickly approaching that point. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry, it's not required an editor explicitly acknowledge policy. Sometimes editors have to accept they're just never going to agree on something and stop going back and forth about it. At that point, it's best to disengage and seek additional help. NE Ent 22:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You know, Locke, you have alot of nerve saying I'm being disruptive. You, who when someone reverts you, you revert back. What were really hitting on the nail is: you don't like it when people disagree with you. And as a result started a massive problem all with the aim to jab at me.

• at least you're not pushing your own personal requirements like RAP is (and I'd strongly encourage you to re-think the "[RAP] is absolutely correct"
• Please stop trying to change site-wide policy and guideline on JUST the pages YOU edit. This is not RAP-opedia, it's Wikipedia
• RAP is under the mistaken delusion that any source MUST be from the mouth of "ScarJo", her publicist, or her doctor; e.g. a primary source, exactly the kind we avoid here

Constantly stating WP:CIR is you implying people are stupid, so that's just being a jerk, when were all trying to civilly discuss the issue. It seems you desperately want people to agree with you, when they don't. Pregnancy is a WP:BLP issue, so it needs more than People reporting on it. Your mean spirited approach to this, with your "competence is required" rants and your filibuster tactics, is what's more disruptive. It doesn't benefit the discussion in the slightest and makes you come off as an arrogant person. It's unfair to me and the other editors when you insinuate we're incompetent simply because we have a different view, and it means you're acting on bad faith. Rusted AutoParts 00:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC) === Interaction ban between Rusted AutoParts and Locke Cole ===

There's no way we can converse without someone accusing of something. It's best for the site if we just didn't interact with each other. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive833#Scarlett Johansson for proof. Rusted AutoParts 01:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

So stop interacting -- focus on the content and policy without referring to other editor's actions, perceived motions, etc. NE Ent 02:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not important to this discussion and has been answered, we should move on now. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 16:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

disruption (continued)

Rusted AutoParts, please follow/remember WP:KETTLE. When you have been Accused, dont accuse back. It seems like this discussion is inappropriately moving onto Rusted Autoparts. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 16:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wheel/move warring by Betty Logan

Earlier, Bovineboy2008 (talk · contribs) moved the page Let It Be (film) to Let It Be (1970 film) without discussion. Seeing this, I requested it be moved back as a undiscussed controversial move at WP:RM. After I made the request Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) moved the page back to its original title and BB properly requested the page be moved by opening a discussion.

After that, however, Betty Logan (talk · contribs) moved the page back to the contested title. Her action is in violation of WP:WHEEL, which prohibits the reversion of another admin's reversion of an administrative action (in this case her reversion of Anthony's reversal of an undiscussed move).

I raised the issue on Betty's talk page but it seems she has no intent to reconsider her wheel warring. Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Betty is not an admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Why was the move considered uncontroversial when it contravenes Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)? A move against guidelines is, by definition, controversial, and it should not have originally been requested as such. - SchroCat (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment In my defence I moved the article as a formality in good faith as you can see at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Requested_move_3. Per WP:NCF the film project fully disambiguates all non-primary topic film titles i.e. Titanic gets disambiguated to Titanic (1997 film) since the boat is the primary topic and there are other Titanic films. A similar case exists here, since the album is the primary topic and there is more than one film. As a rule film editors just perform these moves as a matter of course since they are not particularly controversial. In this instance another editor moved the article to Let It Be (film) and labelled it as "uncontroversial". Neither Bovine Boy—who raised the issue at the Film project—nor the editor who moved it back indicated the initial move had been challenged. I am sorry if I have caused an inconvenience here, but we generally just carry out these moves automatically unless they are formally challenged since it saves a lot of time, and there was no visible objection to the move either from Anthony or Hot Stop. If Hot Stop had also registered his "oppose" at the move discussion instead of ignoring it obviously I would not have closed the discussion as a formality. Bovine Boy provided me with a diff at the Film project of Hot Stop lodging a complaint about the move after I had undertaken it but that complaint must been cleared from Requested Moves page when I checked it before the move, since only Bovine Boy's original request to move the page remained. Obviously there has been a breakdown in communication along the way but regardless the end result is that the article is now compliant with WP:NCF, and nobody has provided a reason either at the article talk page or my talk page as to what exactly the problem is with the new title. Betty Logan (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let It Be (2004 film) also has a Wikipedia article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

unsourced. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no issue here. Two experienced editors worked with WP:NCF and moved the page as needed. If the title of the 2004 film is in doubt, then that can be addressed and the 1970 film moved back, if appropriate. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Update The 2004 film has been nominated at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let It Be (2004 film)). If the article is deleted then the Beatles film can be moved back to its original title; if it survives the AfD then obviously the current disambiguator is indisputably compliant with WP:NFC and all of this is just a storm in a teacup. I recommend letting that run to its conclusion and the issue will be resolved in due course. Betty Logan (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Willful ignorance of the notability of Bruce E. Johansen, etc.

Among the issues here are possible attempted bullying, possible disruptive editing, including "tag bombing", refusal to use article talk pages, deletion of comments and images, et cetera. The situation apparently started at the Paul Chaat Smith article, and prompted the other editor, User:randykitty, to seek out all the articles which I created during the past year and repeatedly place numerous vague maintenance tags on them. The quickness with which he reverts my edits leads me to believe that he has my "user contributions" page on his watch list. By his investing large amounts of time into edit-warring, he has effectively shut down any contribution on my part. The first issue is the question of the notability of Bruce E. Johansen. Repeated taggings (Edits #18, #19, #22, #26, & #36) have been made without even a word on the talk page of the article. Assertion of notability was provided through comments in the article source (Edits #21, #23, & #34). User:randykitty has repeatedly removed this assertion of notability from the article source when replacing his tags, which indicates that he has definitely read it, and is either unable or unwilling to deal with the facts. The record clearly shows that this ignorance of the notability of Professor Johansen is quite intentional, much like all the other complaints that he has made. I was even nice enough to try to attempt a compromise in which the tags would be placed at the bottom of the article in order to allow work on the article to proceed, but he rejected that arrangement. I consider that my actions are proper in deleting the maintenance tags on the basis of this statment found in the wikipedia documentation:

Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag.

—  Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems

Now I am being threatened with being blocked from editing, which would seem to fit the description of a "no-edit order" found at Wikipedia:WikiBullying. See threats at User talk:E.N.Stanway.

Also in dispute are images which User:randykitty arranged to have deleted from the system after vague banners were placed at User talk:E.N.Stanway. I consider that this is yet another instance of intentional harassment. Further discussion of this issue can be found at Talk:Bruce E. Johansen and User talk:randykitty.

Despite a complete lack of discussion on the article talk pages, User:randykitty has repeatedly placed banners on my editor's talk page, again without explanation. Now I myself have been accused of "vandalism" and "disruptive editing". Threats of being blocked include two "final warnings" on my user talk page an one "final warning" in an edit log. More details about the issues may be found at Talk:Bruce_E._Johansen, User_talk:E.N.Stanway and User talk:randykitty. There are many other issues of dispute, but this should suffice to start the discussion. E.N.Stanway (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Any editors who feel like jumping in here are cordially invited to check E.N.Stanway's talk page, the edit histories of the articles he is referring to, the diffs that he shows, and the huge wall of text that I found on my talk page just now. Please ping me if any further clarifications are needed. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The tags at Donald A. Grinde, Jr., Bruce E. Johansen & The Great Sioux Nation (book) are clearly justified and the issues are clearly linked to policy/guideline pages that explain the problems. Continued reverting and casting aspersions/personal attacks by E.N.Stanway appears to be disruptive. regards 94.195.46.224 (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• At first glance, the tags on the article do appear justified. I'm not sure what E.N.Stanway is doing trying to both remove them OR move them to the bottom and calling them "graffiti" - there are clearly wholesale concerns about the article that need to be addressed. We do not move maintenance tags to the bottom of the page, and continually doing that is inappropriate. I also cannot fathom the use of inline comments - the discussion and proof of supposed notability takes place on the article talkpage, and NOT by saying "because I said so" and embedding it in the article. Is there some type of WP:COI in play? There seems to be bull-in-a-china-shop type editing to this page, and full-scale declining to actually discuss anything - they seem quite intending to just lay blame rather than learn Wikipedia's policies, style, and requirements. The "banners' (aka warnings) appear quite valid. I'm concerned that newishness is causing major WP:IDHT and WP:OWN issues here, and it's become quite disruptive DP 11:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

He posted to Randykitty attacking him thus: "the notion that you have promoted that maintenance tags are "necessary" is another of your frauds and lies." and calls his username " more than a little creepy."[59](where he also says he wants discussion of his possible copyvio images to take place not on his talk page but at Talk:Bruce E. Johansen The response to his complaints about his images being deleted is at User talk:TLSuda - if he recreates them he should certainly be blocked. He thinks that maintenance tags aren't needed on one-line BLPs[60] [61] I think the continued insistence on removing maintenance tags from one line articles is blockworthy but am willing to wait to see if he continues to remove them. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope that the image side of this issue will be resolved. I think that he was owed an explanation, but I also think he should have followed the instructions on the template that was placed on the images prior to deletion. Had there been a note contesting the deletion, I would've given an explanation on his talk page. We can see how he responds. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@TLSuda: please note that when I nominated those files for deletion for a second time, I posted a warning template and added a manual comment to that, trying to point the editor to a place where he could get help with this issue. I agree that that is perhaps not the most visible thing and will make such notices clearer in the future. Also, I have used quite long edit summaries trying to explaining the issues to E.N.Stanway. This is a user with several hundreds of edits over more than a year, so I did not consider them a newbie (where I most probably would have explained issues in much more detail). Frankly, I must admit that I also was a bit put off by the hostile attitude of this editor. I didn't read the long rant on my talk page, but see that Dougweller did: for non-US English speakers, my username is explained on my user page. At the time I chose it, our cat had just died and I never intended any carnal allusions... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not faulting you for not reaching out; I could have when I deleted them the first time, or again the second time. My hope is that now he has come to my talkpage he has gotten the information he needed to understand the situation with the images. TLSuda (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

At first I thought this was a newbie, befuddled by templated warnings. But he's been around for over a year, and although he's now blanked them he had received several patient explanations on his talk page about various issues he's been having here since March 2012. [62]. I collapsed his lengthy comment at Talk:Bruce E. Johansen because it inappropriately concentrated largely on personally attacking another editor and his motives. When other editors point out a problem with an article, and Bruce E. Johansen definitely had one, the appropriate response by its creator is to fix it or leave the tags to alert someone else to fix it instead of immediately opening hostilities and firing away with both barrels. I added sufficient refs to it to establish notability in literally half the time E.N.Stanway spent on edit-warring and writing multiple lengthy diatribes and personal attacks on other editors. Having said that, when maintenance tags are removed, the person restoring them ought to explain why they have on the talk page, if nothing else to retain the moral high ground. I hope E.N.Stanway takes the various comments here and on his talk page on board. Otherwise, he is apt to have a short career here.Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Continued disruptive talk page editing by User:Lampstand49

The following is copied from the 3RR noticeboard. It was archived before any action or discussion by an Admin. Following find additional diffs to support disruptive talk page editing.

User:Lampstand49 reported by User:Gaba p (Result: )

Page

Talk:Ken Ham (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lampstand49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC) to 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
   2. 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* edit request by Lampstand49 */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC) to 13:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 13:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* edit request by Lampstand49 */"
   2. 13:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
3. 12:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
4. 12:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 12:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC) to 12:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 12:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600295976 by Gaba p (talk)"
   2. 12:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Editing the lead without discussion here first */"
6. 12:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Editing the lead without discussion here first */"
7. 12:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Editing the lead without discussion here first */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Ken Ham. (TW)"

added previous warnings-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

1. 1. [63]
   2. [64]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* It is a fact that the Age of the Earth is not 6000 years old */ q"

Comments:

Editor has posted two walls of text to the article's talk page rambling about creationism and how the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Both comments were collapsed several times by a number of editors to which he proceeded to un-collapse. He was warned to stop un-collapsing but refuses to stop. Gaba ^(talk) 13:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing of talk pages

diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4. I think this shows a continued pattern of disruptive editing. I apologize for reposting from another noticeboard particularly if this is not in keeping with PAG (post to my talk page with suggestions for handling this better if needed). This editor continues to soapbox and is impeding progress through reasonable consensus. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I will say that as an involved party it might help if an administrator officially notified Lampstand49 about discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience topics and urged them to discontinue their relentless wall-o-text attempts to whitewash the fringe claims being made and IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior of repetitions of the same content when the consensus has recently been repeatedly made against their preferred version. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Gregory445

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

---

Someone block this account and quick. See this and their wonderful userpage. I'm not going to waste my time telling them of this discussion, per WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• User:Gregory445 has been blocked (not by me). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've changed visibility of the edit summary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:33, 24 March 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.

RfC to allow role accounts

An RfC regarding allowing role accounts Gigs (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Continual disruptive editing on Brendan Eich

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

---

A group of dynamic IPs is currently continually inserting this edit onto the page Brendan Eich. I made a request for protection, but that page is very backlogged, and I am afraid it will take quite a while before my query will be answered. Artichoker^[talk] 22:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess what I'm getting at is: could an admin please temporarily semi-protect the article Brendan Eich? The IPs show no signal of stopping, and continually reverting the vandalism every 30 seconds or so is getting tedious. Thanks. Artichoker^[talk] 22:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Now semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 24 March 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.

David Bergstein

In this, the latest edit to the article on David Bergstein, an editor removes a paragraph, with the summary This is a BLP. Contributor editors have COI and are paid editors with an agenda against subject. Persistent sock puppetry. Page is being used as an attack page against subject BLP.

The paragraph (to which I haven't contributed) looks scrupulously sourced, to the LA Times and Wall St Journal. I can imagine that the claimed sources are fictitious, that their meaning is twisted in the summarizing, etc etc. But as no such claim is made in the edit summary, I'm not going to bother to look. I'd simply revert the edit and leave a tart (but polite!) comment to the editor, except for the fact that the previous editor (of the article, not the paragraph) was me. It might be claimed that I have COI and am paid to implement the agenda of some dark force(s) against the subject.

Actually I'd never knowingly heard of Bergstein until mere minutes before I made a series of edits two days ago. I'd read a plea (by TheRedPenOfDoom, I think it was) on some noticeboard for more disinterested eyes to take a look at the article. When I'd read the article, I still didn't think "Oh, that David Bergstein." I hadn't heard of him or the films in which he'd been involved. (But I would say that, wouldn't I? Paid editors with an agenda against a subject so rarely fess up "Yes, I am a paid editor with an agenda against the subject.")

Bergstein's article seems to be a chronic locus of dispute. There's this at WP:AN/I, this at BLP/N, and much more.

Well, some uninvolved administrator may wish to block a number of editors (myself included?) for paid editing in the service of an agenda against the subject. Or they might do something quite different. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC) .... PS yes I have "contributed to" (trimmed minor flab from) the particular paragraph. -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

the edit summary quoted above by Hoary is accurate about two points Contributor editors have COI and Persistent sock puppetry. However, they apply to editor who made them, yet another in a string of sock accounts that appear, make 10 random innocuous edits to get autoconfirmed then head to David Bergstein to turn it into an advertisement with a curious knowledge of wiki-acronyms . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest semi-protection. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Except that these editors are auto-confirmed. Duh. I plead caffeine deficiency. -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've brought up the matter here. I await reasoned arguments. NB I'll probably have to bow out because of (salaried) work commitments, and invite others to keep an eye on what happens. -- Hoary (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This article should be considered for full protection if the problems continue. Any remaining one-sidedness in the article might be addressed through discussion at Talk:David Bergstein#A paragraph that at least one editor doesn't like. TRPoD did not say who he suspected to be the 'string of sock accounts' but recent editors who do not have wide experience elsewhere include User:MaxJTracy, User:Amytecko, User:A18kdE and User:LevilRowe. There has also been socking on the other side of the debate but it was back in October, 2013. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Jakandsig continues to evade block through (obvious) sockpuppets.

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.

---

My name is "Gonna", and I with Indrian, TheTimesAreAChanging, and Sergecross73 have already seen Jakandsig's history of ongoing incivility and disruption. He started editing Wikipedia as an IP circa 2011 and since 2014 has attracted notoriety for the mass destruction he causes on editing primarily video game-related articles and high levels of personal attacks and anger toward other users. Initially he was blocked for limited periods of time, then Serge indefinitely blocked him after he made a rude, long message on his user talk blaming Indrian, TheTimes, and Serge for any chaos Jak made. Since the initial block, he has created sockpuppets often following the same patterns of his conflicts and damage to a wide range of video game articles including North American video game crash of 1983, Atari Jaguar, and Dreamcast. He's been here before, but I have to bring this up to AN/I because we've been surveying him and his sockpuppets for a while. I've considered changing Jak's block to a permanent site-ban because of the carnage he and his sockpuppets have done. Mr*|(60nna) 00:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Jak is currently using BustaBunny as part of his block evasion. BustaBunny must be immediately blocked indefinitely. Mr*|(60nna) 00:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. BustaBunny (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps...but they might understand a threat to vandalize an article by Mr. Bunny just now. [65] Someone might want to keep an eye the editor or look a little closer at their contributions.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Now I see Jak/Bunny is disruptively editing non-video game articles like Mitt Romney. Mr*|(60nna) 02:33, 25 March 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.

Swagmaster111

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 usually don't report these kinds of things but the post made on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_crime&curid=13547&diff=601136560&oldid=601136551 while removed used extremely racist and homophobic language that I don't feel is appropriate on a Wikipedia page. I feel this person should at the very least get talked to by an administrator if not temporarily banned.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think these statements should also be addressed as transphobic. I usually don't bite off on newbies but hate vandalism has become a big problem on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_crime&diff=prev&oldid=601135995 -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not "hate vandalism", or "phobic" anything; that's plain old garden-variety "u said butts hehe" vandalism. That said, the account is clearly here only to vandalise, and has been accordingly blocked (not "banned"). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit nastier than that, and considering the page it was on, I appreciate where the reporter is coming from. I've revdel'd the content of the edits in question as meeting criterion RD2 of Wikipedia:CRD. Since their author is now blocked indefinitely, I think this closes the incident. -- The Anome (talk) 09:59, 25 March 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.

Tony Anthony Evangelist

Could anyone have a look at this section on my talk page? I suppose that I am involved in this matter so I don't believe i am the right person to take action if necessarily. Aside from this i am only around a couple of minutes, so i won't be able to handle this one any time soon myself. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Someone's trying to remove well-sourced comments from an article. They need to stop. The hint that someone may be subject to legal action - but not necessarily Wikipedians - is close to NLT territory. I gave an NLT warning. Perhaps a nicely-worded friendly message about a) non-removal of sourced info, b) the dangers of making legal threats - especially the chilling effect and the possible block- plus his necessity to strike his apparent/borderline threat ASAP, c) how edit-warring is ban, and d) how Wikipedia really works might be in order. DP 12:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I left a short note on Excirial's talkpage. Frankly the complainant needs to contact OTRS. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Hi, I'm the editor that did a lot of work on this article previously, including adding many well-sourced comments. The subject seems to have recently launched an attempt to clear his name and two websites have appeared supporting him. These appear to be WP:SPS and I don't regard them as WP:RS so am not citing them. I have just added a secondary source reporting on this, though. I took a lot of care to comply with WP:BLP when editing this article and it survived an AfD vote initiated by the subject via OTRS in Oct 2013. The subject clearly doesn't like the article as it details how he was discredited. I suspect it will attract further disruptive editing in the future. Thanks for your attention. SmilingFace (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: Earlier today, I temporarily semi-protected the article, and issued final warnings to what appear to me to be socks of the editor above (FavourOfGod), suggesting that they pursue content issues at the article talk page. One of those accounts is also blocked as a username policy violation. In any case, I had not seen this thread nor the legal threats above (which is clearly what they are) at that point. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

User Bismar007

• Bismar007 (talk · contribs)

Bismar007 is a WP:SPA account, who promotes ITVmediaPlayer , who may have a conflict of interest (coi warning). He's repeatedly remove templates from ITVmediaPlayer, and has been blocked twice for doing so. His recent editing includes more promotion, copyright violations, and blanking of templates. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Seconding this user as an issue. Years-long history focused on a single product (currently at AfD), not engaging in discussion, removing templates both at the article on user talk page. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong, failing to WP:AGF and claiming WP:SOCK as a weapon.

Ryulong, has accused me of being/having a sock here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CombatWombat42

Page	Min time between edits	A50000	CombatWombat42
Soviet Union	20 hours — (timeline)	3	1

That is the entirety of his evidence. Ryulong has in the past used the reson "sock" for deleting content created by other editors. If his evidence against me is as flimsy as his evidence against those other users he should not be allowed to claim WP:SOCK as a reason for any edits. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The evidence listed is a similarity in the edit summaries because they both invoke North Korea. I don't think Ryulong made a bad faith sockpuppet report, though it may be a bad report. I don't think any action is necessary based on one report. —C.Fred (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw a commonality and I was a little suspicious. If it's proven wrong then I made a mistake and I'll apologize.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not just my case, in general Ryulong has been using accuszations of sockpupetry to make changes to pages that would otherwise be unaccetable, and if his claims are based on evidence as flimsy as that in my case, he needs to stop. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In all of the other cases you are referring to (except that Macdaddyc/Youngsevon case [I'm still not convinced they're unrelated]) the opposing party was a sockpuppet of a banned editor, though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So you are right what percentage of the time? Assuming you are wrong about me. Is wikipedia willing to accept your blatant disregard for policy 100-<that percent of the time>? Because everytime you assume someone is a sock and then are wrong, you are violating policy. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say I'm somewhere in the 90th percentile or higher. And all that is happening here is I saw a connection and I thought it was probable. And it's only "violating policy" if I suspect a banned editor is involved, I act on my suspicion, and I'm proven wrong. That hasn't happened yet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You have to admit, Ryulong, that you freely use the rationale of "removing content from a blocked editor" to freely delete any content you deem falls under this category, whether it is to an article, talk page or user talk page. And when I press you for evidence that the editor is a sock account, it usually isn't diffs, but based on similarities you perceive. I think you should work through SPI rather than taking on wholesale deleting of content from editors you judge to be socks. If it is as apparent as you believe, you'll be validated at SPI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, stop pinging me by copying my signature. There's no need for you to write my name as "[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]]" every time. Just use "Ryulong".

Second, I have not in this case that CombatWombat42 is taking offense to done anything in regards to removing content because I suspect sockpuppetry. And you've never pressed me for evidence of sockpuppetry that I can recall. If you're going off of the Wiki-star or BuickCenturyDriver/Don't Feed the Zords debacles, it was their overall behavior that had to be compared. And if you look at WP:SPI you can see it is heavily backlogged. It's easier to bag and tag in the short term when it's obvious (constantly posting messages to that one user's talk page, constantly adding the same copyvio content to an episode list as they did to other episode lists in the past, etc.) than it is to let them run rampant and cause problems. No page is exempt from WP:BAN. Things were not handled properly in everything you saw, but that fact still stands.

As I said, I have done no reverting concerning sockpuppetry in this CombatWombat42/A50000 investigation. I saw similar rationales and edit warring over the course of several days and I sent it for investigation. If I'm wrong in this case, then I'll apologize and nothing has to be done. This is really making a mountain out of a molehill.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

First, I didn't think of it as "pinging" you...I was referring to you, as an editor, and I thought I'd use the signature you prefer. No one else has ever told me this was improper as this is how you like your name to appear. But I won't in the future since you dislike it.

I don't know the specifics of this case on AN/I but I'm referring to when you repeatedly deleted comments from my talk page that you said were being posted by a sock account even though I didn't see any hard evidence this was the case. And when I reverted your deletions (as it was my talk page) because I wanted to read their messages to me, you acted like I was providing a safe haven for blocked users, even though it hadn't been established that they were a blocked user. In fact, I don't even know how you came to view my talk page and the comments since I doubt that you have it on your Watchlist. We had quite a conversation about this incident, stretching over several pages, so I'm surprised you don't remember it. It's never happened to me before that another editor deleted someone else's content from my talk page but maybe it isn't unusual for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong: would it have cost you anything to write "First of all, please stop pinging me by copying my signature" instead of "First of all, stop pinging me by copying my signature"? You don't need anyone else to paint you as the bad guy, you do it all by yourself. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Obviously, filing an SPI in good faith is not against policy. Being mistaken about the connection is not against policy. Being wrong often isn't against policy, but it will result in a user being barred from filing at SPI, via a discussion at ANI (essentially, a topic ban). Unless someone can show that this filing was bad faith, OR that Ryulong is wrong more than 10% of the time at SPI, then this is a dead subject (I'm just making up that number, but you should be right at least 90%, or there is reason to discuss at ANI). I will remind everyone that reverting someone as a sock, or calling someone a sock, if you have not filed an SPI report on them or reported them to an admin is a blockable personal attack as a clear violation of WP:NPA. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  How is it a personal attack?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  Because you are labeling someone with a title that undermines their edits and can get them blocked. It is the same if I go around reverting you with the summary "reverting edits from a vandal". You are making a claim against someone without substantiating it. Trust me, it isn't my opinion, policy is clear that calling someone by a name that is a blockable offense (vandal, sockpuppet, etc.) is absolutely a personal attack. It can also be used to simply undermine their voice in a discussion, and to create a chilling effect in a discussion. Unquestionably, a blockable issue if you haven't reported them, or you do so in bad faith. Really, you don't need to call them a sock at all if they aren't blocked for it, but if you haven't reported them first, it looks very much like bad faith. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown is right about idle allegations of sockpuppetry, which are just as disruptive as idle allegations of vandalism. If you know Wikipedia well enough to know what WP:VANDALISM is, don't claim vandalism in a content dispute simply because you are on the side of WP:TRUTH. If you know Wikipedia well enough to know what a sockpuppet is, don't claim sockpuppetry unless you have reason beyond idle suspicion. Just because both users quack doesn't make them the same species of duck. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Because if you believe someone is a sock, you do a wholesale revert of all of their edits, without any proof whatsoever. You're thinking of the percentage of times you're right but consider the situation when you are wrong and an editor finds all of their edits reverted? I'm sure that if they weren't mainly IPs, they'd appear on AN/I where you'd need to present your evidence to back up your claim. Right now, you are completely unrestrained. No doubt, given your lengthy experience on Wikipedia, you have a good sense for possible socks. But you can't be right all of the time and if targeted, innocent IPs won't normally come to AN/I to complain, they will just stop editing. So, yes, it can be a personal attack. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• In short, you tread lightly and don't throw around the "sock" word unless you are sure enough to file a report on them. This is also an editor retention issue, where new users don't need to be called a sockpuppet and chased off the project just because they are interested in the same subject a real sockpuppet was interested in. Connecting the dots between sockpuppets isn't as simple as "they are both interested in $x article", there is a lot of nuance to it, which is why SPI exists, and why the people that work there are specialists at it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was hoping to hear. WP:AGF goes for IP accounts, too...at least that's where you start, not assuming an IP is a vandal or sock. Thanks, Dennis Brown. I hope your view is shared by other admins and editors. I edited for years as an IP and I know that if I had been treated as a sock, I wouldn't be editing now. I assume that goes for many other IP editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe that it is more a more of policy than opinion, although it is more difficult to enforce than some policies. It all boils down to not calling someone as sock, vandal, troll or other negative name unless you are very confident that they fit the definition at Wikipedia for that label. Anyway, this can probably be closed and hopefully we won't have to visit this issue again. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Not Again - These Reports Are Too Common

At least once every two weeks there is another report at this board involving User:Ryulong. Often it has to do with anime and manga. Sometimes it has to do with other areas. What I have observed in, among other things, Soviet Union, is that I agree with Ryulong on the specific content issues, but he can be extremely uncivil, and being right doesn't justify incivility and personal attacks. My advice to Ryulong, which will almost certainly be ignored, is to dial it down, and don't always have to be right, and also that there is no harm done in discussing edits with a sockpuppet. It isn't always necessary to win the edit war, even if it is winnable under the special exceptions for blocked users. At the same time, my advice to those who keep bringing Ryulong to the noticeboards is that they are just wasting electrons here. If they really want Ryulong to change his behavior or to have him blocked, go with the more structured approach of a user conduct request for comments. Ryulong: Dial the rhetoric down. Critics of Ryulong: Either dial the rhetoric down, or follow established procedures. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Or try something really stupid like.....attempting to assume good faith and engaging the editor in a civil manner to counter the perception of incivility. I am getting really tired of the gang up myself to be honest but it happens so often I wonder if I should just seek a gang myself. Nah....I can be enough of an asshole not to drag others into my ignorance...which is what I suggest of others think about as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this advice really applies here. I thought I saw suspicious activity and made a request to investigate. I've not even engaged in discussion with either parties prior to CombatWombat42's creation of this thread in response to the SPI. I don't even see myself being incivil in any of the discussions I'm currently embroiled in, either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I make some suggestions?

Here are some common-sense suggestions I think that can help Ryulong operate in the area that he operates in (where sockpuppetry is unfortunately not uncommon) without coming into conflict. Ryulong, if you think any of this is unreasonable, feel free to say what is unreasonable and why. If someone else thinks that any of this advice is incorrect, again, feel free to correct me.

• Suspecting someone of sockpuppetry, if you have a good reason to feel that way, is fine.
• Opening an SPI case for someone who you suspect is a sockpuppet is also fine, and not a big deal. If someone is mentioned in an SPI case and is cleared it won't hurt their reputation at the project. It happens to lots of people, even I was accused once of being a sockpuppet (by someone who turned out to be a sockpuppet themselves).
• Alerting the person that an SPI was opened is fine. Asking someone questions that might help you decide whether or not to open an SPI (without being overly accusatory in the process) is fine.
• What is not fine... Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet without simultaneously presenting evidence of it, as this is a personal attack and clearly defined as one by our policy. Administrators sometimes make WP:DUCK blocks and tags of editors who are sockpuppets, and there is a bit of leeway given for that (to not let an excess of bureaucracy get in the way of stopping disruption) but any admin should be able to justify any block with some evidence (though maybe not too much per WP:BEANS).
• What is also not fine... Tagging an editor's page with a sockpuppet template when the editor has not been identified as a sock and/or blocked by an administrator. Reverting an editor's edits because you suspect the editor is a sockpuppet; wait until the editor has been tagged and/or blocked by an admin before doing that. Taking any action at all with the assumption that the editor you're reverting is a sockpuppet, before an administrator has taken action against the editor for sockpuppetry.

I know that administrators don't have special "authority", but this is one of those areas where admins have traditionally been expected to enforce policy and non-administrators are discouraged. There's a reason why WP:SPI/AI is called "administrator instructions". -- Atama頭 18:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Reverting an editor's edits because you suspect the editor is a sockpuppet"

This is where I got hung up with Ryulong in the past, when he edited my talk page to revert another editor he thought was a sock (whether he was or not, I don't know). He stated that WP:DENY took precedence over other policy. Nice to see this issue clarified. Sometimes you have to say these points out loud (so to speak) as reminders. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:DENY is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. It has good advice (when used responsibly) but doesn't take precedence over anything. -- Atama頭 22:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Evasion and enforcement is policy though. And you are both censuring me for my actions regarding the Wiki-star and BuickCenturyDriver sockpuppets who were pretty blatant about who they were. All I've done in this situation is mistakenly believe that CombatWombat42 and A50000 are somehow related and he took everything way too personally, as can be seen in his WP:POINTy and retaliatory opening of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryulong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: If your last point is true, then why does Template:Sockpuppet specifically state that you may tag an account when you think it is a sock, but are not sure?--Atlan (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Atama is correct, and details what I said better than I did. For the most part, you leave SPI to the clerks at SPI, who are picked by CUs and are more accountable for their actions. If you think someone is a sock, right or wrong, calling them a sock isn't solving anything. Admins and clerks are selected by the community to deal with exactly these problems, let them. As long as you are right much more than you are wrong when reporting them, there are no issues. And....regardless of what a template page says, editors tagging other editors is a bad idea 99% of the time, it only causes drama. And if someone does it several times and is wrong many times, they WILL get blocked for disruption, or topic banned from SPI or using any sock related templates. I have seen that before. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Anyone can compare and/or contrast Ryulong 8 years ago to whatever he is today, and he or she thinks the user experiences between him and others was okay back then but now look bleak. Betacommand in 2005 before he changed his name to "Δ" (Delta) was not as harmful as during the time when he got criticism from WP:ARBCOM and was banned in 2012. History repeats. Ryulong will probably go to ArbCom and might be banned if the mayhem and misunderstandings he's creating continues. I guarantee he would fail to keep up with his past success because he accused an innocent user for sockpuppetry. He is not Cirt. IX|(C"<) 22:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    • What is this even supposed to mean other than being a huge failure to assume good faith? This is one mistake I've made that the other person took way too personally. In the other cases I dealt with obvious sockpuppets and directly with a CU in trying to get them shut down because they were obvious sockpuppets. The only reason I ended up blocked in regards to those situations was because I engaged the sockpuppets and someone got mad when I tried to remove the messages he received from those sockpuppets. This is all being blown out of proportion, again, and should have ended without having the new subsections.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I think the nugget of wisdom to take from this "Gonna" guy's comment is that eventually, they will probably ban you just so they won't have to read about you anymore; it'd have nothing to do with being right or wrong. On numerous occasions I have compared Arbcom's dealings cases to a basketball game where two players get into a bit of a row. The refs rarely take the time to look at who started it, i.e. who was truly at fault; the refs just T up both parties just to get the decks cleared and for the game to resume. Everything looks like a nail to the Hammer Corps, bro. Tarc (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. If Ryu continues to refuse to tone it down, one of these days, some Admin is going to "tone it down for him" when they're tired of hearing about it. Not me, but a different admin who doesn't want to hear about it anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize ANI was the place to make vague threats.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's more puzzling about that comment. You taking that as a threat when I specifically stated I wouldn't do that to you? Or the fact that people threaten one another up and down ANI? (Even though I wasn't in this instance.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It wasn't a threat by Sergecross, but a caution. Several of us have advised Ryulong to dial down the rhetoric. Ryulong appears to have said that he isn't interested in listening to that advice because he knows that he is right. At least, that is how it comes across to some of us. Those of us who know that Ryulong is often right, but also know that "being right" doesn't justify personal attacks in Wikipedia, have tried to remind him to listen. Ryulong: You are coming across as being stubborn. It isn't helping you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sergecross is right, he is just trying to let you know what will happen if you continue this behavior. It is just a reminder to settle down. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 13:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the guideline that "sockpuppets cannot be tagged unless blocked by an administrator" was added without consensus. As someone who was reverting a herd (what's the collective noun for sockpuppets? laundry basket?) of sockpuppet IPs based near Grand Rapids, Michigan and Kalamazoo, Michigan, I feel that Rylong's tagging and reverting the sockpuppets is more productive than my merely reverting them. I haven't checked his evidence, but, in my case, CU won't touch a collection of IPs without a master account, so asking CU is inappropriate, and I don't believe SPI was helpful in that instance. I haven't seen the IPs lately; perhaps he's moved to a place without Internet access. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a "drawer" of socks, I think. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Or a “drawerful”.—Odysseus1479 03:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Constant personal attacks by Mrm7171

Mrm7171 keeps attacking me and accusing me of using Wikipedia to promote the academic Society for Occupational Health Psychology. This has been going on since last summer, and I just want it to stop. For the record, I am a member of SOHP, but I have no financial or family/friend interest in this society. It is a typical academic society with hundreds of members. I am not an officer or have any particular personal stake in it. The occupational health psychology article they keep accusing me of using as promotion for SOHP has a mention of SOHP in one place (history of the field), and I am not the one who wrote it. I just want them to stop accusing me every time I disagree on some content issue. They have done it on the occupational health psychology talk page and other place. They keep inserting personal opinion, unreferenced statement, and mis-citing sources into the article, e.g.,[66], and when other editors point it out, they are attacked. They have been blocked three times for bad behavior, the last time in February for personal attacks. Here's some examples of the accusations on the OHP talk page and other places.

[67] One quote: “Iss246&psyc12, it is obvious that you are both very strongly advocating for and trying to advance and promote your outside interests and connection to your 2 'OHP' societies(ie. S'OHP' & EA-'OHP').

After Atama just cautioned me to be careful in talking about SOHP in articles, they kept on with the attacks. “Iss246’s & now psyc12’s ridiculously strong and blatant promotion and Wikipedia:Advocacy (since 2008) is definitely continuing to create disruption to editing.[68] Note when Atama asked for examples of promotion, they provided none.

On Jytdog’s talk page where I have never posted: [69]

And today--see end of this section and Bilby's independent reaction. [70]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc12 (talk • contribs) Psyc12 (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is right here, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard under header Occupational Health Psychology that you are actually talking about above, psyc12. I had a right to report you there. That is the appropriate forum for COI reports. However can you please provide any evidence, at all, through diffs psyc12, where I have personally attacked you?? Not once, not any! I have made sure I have remained civil, courteous and respectful for over 75 days with both you and iss246. I feel this report here is vexatious and frivolous, without any cause, or based on any objective evidence.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Psyc12 and iss246 have admitted themselves as friends and colleagues outside of Wikipedia; psyc12 joining Wikipedia on iss246’s direct invitation. They are also active members and advocates for the Society for Occupational Health Psychology and the ‘goals’ of that professional society. They edit in unison, ‘appearing’ at the same time, on the same articles, presenting the same POV, and often even answering questions that were directed to the other editor.

See [71] Psyc12 seems to be as involved in SOHP & EAOHP as their colleague, here discussing SOHP [72] Psyc12 could be the chair of the 'OHP' committee for all I know!

In fact, these COI issues with iss246 & now psyc12 and the society of 'OHP' have been ongoing since 2008 between many psychology editors. See here. Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1. It is also seen here, in these series of diffs, from 2008, between iss246 and another experienced editor. These diffs show difficulties iss246 is presenting over the same topic of ‘OHP’ and including ‘external links’ to their society for ‘OHP’ in the OHP article. See: [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] The point is, I have tried to add edits, or sources to bring some NPOV but have been prevented from doing so by both psyc12 & iss246. See this diff showing 3 consecutive reverts made by psyc12 within minutes of each other and me trying to find a civil resolution. [82] On Talk:Occupational health psychology It is filled to the brim with at least 20 PDF links back to their SOHP newsletters as reliable sources. Also adding external links back to their SOHP society, and then other editors being told (in no uncertain terms) by iss246 & psyc12 to leave the external links alone! [83] [84] [85] And here psyc12 saying there is only room in the article for links to their 'OHP’ societies!? [86] [87][88] [89] [90] I have tried not to bring up the COI assessment made by Atama and was not aware that COI could not be mentioned again? In fact, as soon as I dared to remind these editors of the COI issues, I am immediately reported here by psyc12!? I even said to Bilby before psyc12 decided to post here, okay, well I won't mention Atama's COI assessment again. However this article remains very biased and I feel like no other editor can possibly add any reliably sourced, neutral edits to the article, without psyc12 & iss246 quickly blanking them in tandem, under the guise that the edits were "not appropriate" (or some other similar excuse), and without providing any diffs, or Wikipedia policy explaining on what basis they are deleting my edits? see Talk:Occupational health psychology.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If any editor believes there is 'any' uncivil, or 'any' disrespectful editing or any personal attacks I have made, over the past 65 days please post the evidence right here. I stand by my objective edit history over the past few months, and don't appreciate 'frivolous blanking' of my good faith edits or baseless claims of personal attack, here by psyc12. As I've said, I won't bring up Atama's assessment of COI again, and did not realise that I could not even mention, that this assessment had actually been established at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard when psyc12 & iss246 have completely ignored that assessment and this article Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide I found quite useful in dealing with COI issues.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my suggestion at WP:COIN was that if someone was a member of a professional society that they should take care when editing articles about their organization, or when adding information about their organization to articles or linking to sites related to or hosted by their organization. For example, I myself hold some certifications provided by CompTIA, and was at one time an "IT Professional" member of the organization. As a result, I just don't edit anything related to it. I might be holding myself to a pretty strict COI standard, because I wouldn't gain any direct benefit from promoting the organization and little-to-no indirect benefit either. I assume that both Psyc12 and Iss246 have a similar relationship with SOHP. The only reason why I stated on the COI noticeboard that I had a concern was because there was a claim that they were advocates for the organization. The term "advocate" is a loaded one, but neither editor denied the claim, despite the fact that I brought it up again myself in that discussion. So I'm not comfortable with two "advocates" for an organization using references provided by the organization. At the same time, I warned Mrm7171 to "not use my determination of a COI concern in regards to SOHP as a bludgeon in content disputes, especially in regards to edit-warring and personal attacks", and to use dispute resolution to settle any disagreements at the page rather than relying on COI concerns to "win" a dispute. I also stated very clearly that I wouldn't (and couldn't) unilaterally declare a ban on the editors that would prevent them from editing about SOHP. I later asked Mrm7171 what bias or other problems were introduced to the article because of the inclusion of references to SOHP. As far as I can tell, I never received a direct answer to my question.

So, unfortunately I believe that Mrm7171 did exactly was I asked the editor not to. They took my mild concern about a COI and are misusing it to bludgeon the other editors into submission, and are trying to at least paint Iss246 (and by implication Psyc12 as a colleague) as an editor using Wikipedia for financial gain based solely on a grant received 15 years earlier. Mrm7171 did link to some legitimate misbehavior from Iss246 on the COI noticeboard as examples of bias, but the links date back to 2008, which suggests that the editor has improved and moved past the problems they had starting out. More recent examples of "misbehavior" seem to be well-explained content changes and Mrm7171 seems to be objecting to any inclusion of information provided by SOHP as improper, or removal of information provided by other sources, regardless of context. It's getting into WP:NPA territory at this point, and Mrm7171 has already been blocked once for that (see here in the ANI archives). The suggestion there was that Mrm7171 should be blocked indefinitely, but Drmies only blocked Mrm7171 for two weeks. There was hope expressed in that discussion that Mrm7171 would return "with a fresh perspective" but seeing that two months later they are still at it, perhaps the suggestion at that old discussion (by multiple editors) that Mrm7171 be blocked indefinitely should be revisited. -- Atama頭 16:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that was my hope. I never saw clear consensus for something as drastic as that, and that's no surprise since wading through the contributions made by both editors, but especially Mrm, is not an attractive prospect--these discussions have suffered from lack of third-party input. Given the results of your investigation, I have no objection to an indefinite block. It is entirely possible that the other side has been disruptive one way or another, but I think any objective observer will recognize that the main thrust comes from Mrm's side. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add, too, that about a week (or so) following the expiration of their most recent block, Mrm7171 filed a sockpuppet investigation trying to link Psyc12 and Iss246 together, despite the fact that CheckUser had already been run against the two the previous year and cleared them both (with the suggestion that there was evidence of some collusion between the two, but not enough to be actionable). This was prior to the COI noticeboard complaint filed a few weeks later. Looking over Mrm7171's contributions, I'm seeing an obsessive focus on working against both of these editors, most especially after their last block expired. This includes discussing the edits of these editors on talk pages of other editors, discussing it on article talk pages, discussing it at COIN, at SPI, reverting the editors, and so on. The more I look into Mrm7171's editing behavior (which includes more than 1,000 edits since they were unblocked at the end of January) the more I see a disturbing pattern of what can only be called harassment. Unless someone gives me a reason otherwise, I'm going to block them indefinitely. I don't believe that Mrm7171 is at Wikipedia for constructive purposes. -- Atama頭 17:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge made a good suggestion of a voluntary six-month topic ban for Mrm7171 and Iss246, but it seems both have turned it down. Unfortunately, the current state is unworkable, with ongoing disruption across multiple articles. - Bilby (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Would that involve iss246 as well? If so, I would be willing to agree to that. The conflict between iss246 and multiple editors since 2008 has not improved. I am just the most recent editor that has attempted to bring some NPOV to these 'OHP' articles and found strident opposition from iss246 when I have attempted any change. And i mean any change whatsoever, however slight. So why then focus on me. Why not the countless other editors over the years? And obviously there is a common denominator here, since 2008. That is iss246. Sorry for stating the absolutely, bleeding obvious here, but hey!Mrm7171 (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

My behavior over the past 70 days now has been exemplary. I have backed down, stepped back, compromised. I can show that through my objective edit history, countless examples in fact. No one has produced any diffs or actual objective evidence to show otherwise. I have made substantial contributions to a range of articles on Wikipedia in specialized areas. I have brought matters to the appropriate forums, as advised by many editors. As soon as I do so, I'm attacked for doing that? I added to the COIN case as I was unclear what Atama meant. What parameters if any, had been set I had wondered? Atama asked for more information. I provided it. I was also not aware of not being able to mention it again? I stopped mentioning it! I have been civil and courteous and respectful. If I had not been civil or had not 'backed down,' 'stepped back', compromised, then sure, but I have done of that!

So, on what grounds exactly, would you consider banning me, please? The only reason I can see, is you saying I am obsessed with these 2 editors. I only want to see neutral, reliably sourced articles. If you believe I have harassed or personally attacked, provide some evidence through diffs please. I have not. And will not. Please produce some actual diffs, as evidence, showing how I have done anything against any Wikipedia policies and guidelines that warrant banning?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Specifically Atama, if you say a pattern of harassment could you provide any diffs, any evidence over the past 70 days? It seems that I am being made the scapegoat here to deal with a difficult situation. That is, an editor actually holding iss246's editing behavior to account and in the proper forum. Countless other editors have given up. These articles are grossly biased. That is not what Wikipedia wants their articles to be, surely! If there is actual evidence over the past 70 days for these accusations against me, surely it would be no problem providing the diffs? I realize you are taking on an administrator's role, however we all need to abide by Wikipedia protocol. Just saying someone does something without any diffs to prove it, is simply opinion and entirely subjective. Please provide some diffs Atama to support your accusations. Isn't that fair enough? I have made significant contributions to Wikipedia in many articles. I completely reject an assertion that I am not here for constructive purposes. And especially, with absolutely no diffs to support that accusation.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

My involvement in this: January 16, pointing out WP:SHOUT to Mrm7171 first, second; January 23, chastizing Iss246 (with an added ping to Psyc12) about using an article talk page "for diff-less rebutting of a blocked user's diff-less accusations posted on an entirely different page." I edited Occupational safety and health on January 31 for formatting.[91]

For this post I looked at the February 28 COIN posting, and the non-article related edits up to March 23 0112, performed by three of the contributors to the Occupational health psychology article. I did not look at articles or content edits, nor is anything posted after March 23 0112 included. Please note that quoted text contains native formatting peculiarities. Lack of ellipses around chopped quotes was my decision, and excess link arrows becaouse I forgot {{diff}}.

Lots of diffs

COIN used as a bludgeon At Jytdog (talk · contribs)'s talk: March 3 "iss246&psyc12 have blatantly ignored your opinion and indeed Atama's fair and objective summation and direction" (Jytdog had commented at COIN) At Jytdog's talk: March 4, 0044 "Administrator Atama, you, I..." At Jytdog's talk: March 4, 0301 "Atama's summation was accurate and fair" Talk:Occupational health psychology (T:OHP): March 13 "administrator Atama's accurate assessment" with COIN, WP:Advocacy, WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Verifiability and WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide (PSCOI) (essay) links T:OHP: March 14, 0802 "Administrator Atama has already made the correct assessment" w/COIN link T:OHP: March 14, 2231 "administrator Atama correctly assessed these COI issues." w/COIN link T:OHP: March 16 "legitimate COI concerns have already been assessed by administrator Atama" w/COIN, VERIFIABILITY, NPOV, and PSCOI links T:OHP: March 19 "administrator Atama's accurate recent assessment" w/VERIFIABILITY link T:OHP: March 21 "administrator Atama correctly assessed these COI issues." w/COIN, WP:Tag team, PSCOI, ADVOCACY, NPOV, and VERIFIABILITY links T:OHP: March 22, 0026 "But won't mention Atama's COI assessment again on this page." w/PSCOI link T:OHP: March 22, 0103 "Atama did provide psyc12 & iss246 advice," ... "These 2 editors have ignored administrator's advice." T:OHP: March 23 "won't mention Atama's COI assessment here again." At WP:ANI: March 22, 0536 and March 22, 0826. Note that while one is expected to give pertinent history into editor conflicts, Mrm7171 links to the COIN board in both posts, adds in Atama's name with this revision, and a PSCOI link in this revision. Battlefield behaviour Mrm7171 (talk · contribs): Almost constant use of 'scare quotes' around the abbreviation OHP, even inside other abbreviations, such as S'OHP'; see Talk:Occupational health psychology, user talk page, etc.. Refusal to link to OHP, only to the word "psychology", as in "organizational health psychology", except when coaxing editors to edit the article. Originally it was a dispute about the topic range of OHP[92], but Mrm7171 has continued to use it [93] [94] [95] [96][97] [98] [99][100] [101] [102][103] [104] [105] twice in this one, "broad topic" at COIN, [106] [107] [108] at COIN, at COIN Massive case of the shouts (bolding); see any talk page Mrm7171 has ever posted on to view it. Attempt to make other editors see Psyc12 and/or Iss246 as bad (poor?) editors: Discussions at Jytdog's talk, any T:OHP edit addressed to an editor other than Psyc12 or Iss246. Repeated use of "objective" / "objectivity" in attempts to either water down their own criticism or stroke another editor: at Talk:OHP [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114]; at Jytdog's talk three uses, two uses, and one use; at COIN two times, three times Dismissing a reliable source because it "appears to be another member and advocate of this 'OHP' society" (combined diff), "It sounds like a subjective opinion", "Clearly other 'objective' sources contradict his opinions." (combined diff). When asked to produce the other sources[115], Mrm7171 failed to do so and reverted to accusing Psyc12 and Iss246 of advocacy and COI at the bottom of this section Posts multiple times in a row without waiting for replies. These posts are irregularly indented, riddled with bold text, and usually contain a slam at either Psyc12, Iss246 or both. See the edit history of OHP talk page history for the times, Contributors to that page for total number of posts, and this randomly picked edit for a "You did all these bad things but *I* am working towards consensus!" post. Psyc12 made a single 256-word post with numbered points in it. It ended with a complaint about "endless walls of text", Mrm7171 replied, "That's a lot of text, psyc12 and is very confusing." Mrm7171's next five uninterrupted edits added 2 sections totalling 229 words. Bibly posted once, then Mrm7171 made 6 edits, creating 2 posts in one section and a brand new section, at 186 words total, in one hour. Refusing to accept that Psyc12 and Iss246 are separate editors: Mrm7171 pings "psyc12" 7 times on the OHP talk page, and otherwise mentions "psyc12" 44 times. Of those 44 mentions, 35 pair Psyc12 and Iss246 ("psyc12 & iss246", "you and psyc12" talking to Iss246). Slamming Psyc12's and/or Iss246's work on the OHP article: pretty much any post at the WP:COIN section or any post at Talk:OHP; at Bilby (talk · contribs)'s talk:[116] "Just want a civil resolution and to bring some much needed NPOV to that very biased article." Of the 35 pairings from above, starting at February 27 and ending March 22 (23 days), Mrm7171 comments: "deleting key points" "It is not very civil to just delete it like you both have and creates unnecessary conflict." "blindly delete" "may not reflect positively on your 'OHP' society members" "friends and colleagues outside of Wikipedia, makes editing very disruptive." "There are obvious commercial and financial interests involved here" "Please don't fabricate or distort" (when no one had posted yet) "will you continue to 'block' any much needed additions and NPOV to this article?" "will you continue to blindly delete" "Society of 'OHP' (that iss246 & psyc12 are active members of)" "paid sponsorship" "are strong advocates for, and members of, the 'OHP' societies and the various goals, and agendas and associated conferences and paid sponsorships" "do you both actually mean your privately run 'OHP' societies?" "separate 'OHP' community?" "affiliated with iss246 and psyc12's 'OHP' societies.Wikipedia:Verifiability." "alongside iss246 and psyc12's 2 'OHP' societies", "part of their 2 'OHP' societies" "it is obvious that you are both very strongly advocating for and trying to advance and promote your outside interests and connection to your 2 'OHP' societies(ie. S'OHP' & EA-'OHP') "have ignored and dismissed administrator Atama's accurate assessment of your COI in this article" "both having COI issues in relation to your 'OHP' societies." Quoting Atama at COIN and adding bolding: "He stated: "I do agree that there are some legitimate COI concerns here, though. If Iss246 and Psyc12 are members of an organization, I strongly recommend taking care when referencing the organization or writing about the organization in articles." "insisted including this informal 'OHP' group", "Seems very promotional." "COI concerns", "active members of the exact organizations we are writing about" "With a number of the other deletions that psyc12&iss246 had made, I chose not to re-include them, for civility and compromise." "active members of their 'OHP' society have significant COI issues" Quoting Atama as per above, with no inserted bolding, but adds the truncated quote, ""Also operating together could be considered tag teaming, which can lead to problems."" "COI issues existed with psyc12 & iss246's 'OHP' memberships and advocacy of that societies agendas"..."an extremely biased article" "These 2 editors have ignored administrator's advice." "have also blanked this neutral, reliably sourced edit." The list is not complete: these are only from T:OHP, and only from paragraphs where Mrm7171 addresses both Psyc12 and Iss246 together. No diffs are included; I found the mentions of "psyc12" by using Ctrl+F on the page then reading the sentence/section. Tenditious, "I didn't hear that!" attitude: Demands explanations for edits and, when an explanation is provided, then demands diffs (yes, diffs) or explanations of how the edit in question follows policy. Most recent demand here, previous one, one hour before that The section Talk:Occupational health psychology#Discussion of of blanking is an example, by its length, breadth of topics, demands, and Mrm7171's deafness, of how Mrm7171 interacts on that talk page. Its last few posts end with Bilby telling Mrm7171 to drop the stick inre COIN. Mrm7171 conflates the alleged COI as producing an "extremely biased article" (bold formatting removed) and says they won't mention it again. Three more edits to the page and 27 minutes later, Mrm7171 posts: "Also Bilby. Atama did provide psyc12 & iss246 advice, regarding their COI, and I even offered this excellent article as a guide also. Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. These 2 editors have ignored administrator's advice. So, what do you suggest Bilby?" Bilby replies, "I suggest doing nothing. Neither Psy12 nor Iss246 have a COI in regard to OHP. They do potentially have a COI in regard to SOHP, which I am sure they take into account, but there is no reason why they should not be editing this article, and excellent reasons as to why their involvement here is a good thing." Mrm7171 posts, "I think that's all I ever said too Bilby, re: the COI assessment related to their affiliations with their 'OHP' academic societies and the society agendas? Also, as I said, didn't realise the COI issues could never be mentioned here, to be honest. Regardless, won't mention Atama's COI assessment here again. Just want to move forward with this article. It does need a lot of work. Towards that goal, you haven't commented below please Bilby? Interested in your thoughts?" Psyc12 (talk · contribs): Attempts to turn COIN into conduct censure: first, second In the past three weeks Psyc12 has said little to nothing to anyone about Mrm7171. They have posted 12 times to the OHP talk page, and otherwise have left only notices of this AN/I on 2 user talk pages. Iss246 (talk · contribs): Attempts to turn COIN into conduct censure (first, second (combined diff)), was chastised for it, then took it to a user talk page where they were also chastised. In the past three weeks Iss246 has said nothing to anyone about Mrm7171 on user talk pages, beyond the above discussion on March 2. Iss246 got bossy on OHP talk: "So leave the OHP external links section alone." A previous post included, "Don't make a federal case out of it." This was in a new section just after a previous week-long discussion (Talk:Occupational health psychology#External links) that ended with Mrm7171 saying there were "obvious commercial and financial interests involved". Mrm7171 started the new section the next day.

Again, this was a limited look at non-content contributions. It was originally created very early on March 23 so it contains nothing posted anywhere after that. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not notice the breaches of the 3 revert rule over the past 2 weeks, by both iss246 & psyc12, posted anywhere in all of that? I did not realise 'OHP' was scary quotes either? You did not mention Jytdog's strong belief that Wikipedia was being used for advocacy and promotion? You did not post any diifs of all the occasions I compromised, backed down, stepped back over content disputes? As soon as Bilby said don't bring up COIN, I stopped. I was not aware it could not be mentioned. You talk about bolding or shouting. Where? Where on any talk pages, in the last 65 days, have I overused bolding? I did not see all of the other articles I have made constructive editing on? mentioned above? Mrm7171 (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mrm7171: I posted diffs above in my initial post to this thread. The bottom line is this... You came very close to an indefinite block because of your pursuit of Iss246. You were blocked temporarily instead, with the hope that maybe a lengthy block would give you some perspective. Instead, you hounded the editor, and Psyc12 as well, taking them to SPI (which was clearly just retaliation, you knew that CheckUser had already cleared them) and followed that up with the COIN thread. I told you that I had mild concerns, but that they weren't especially serious and I said not to use my concerns to attack the editors and to use dispute resolution. You did the opposite. You've demonstrated time and again that you are completely unable to participate collegially on Wikipedia, and I believe your entire purpose on this encyclopedia since your last block (and probably for some time before it) has been to work doggedly against these editors.

But I'll give you a chance, probably one more chance than you merit at this point, but I'll offer it anyway. Would you agree to leave these editors alone? To stop undoing their edits, removing their references, bringing them up on noticeboards, challenging them on user and article talk pages? Will you do something useful for the encyclopedia? -- Atama頭 15:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I recently ran across this... Was that sincere? Are you willing to "step right back from these 'OHP' articles"? Because if so, I think we can all just move on, no admin action needed against you or anyone else. -- Atama頭 15:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean that Atama. In fact, I already have stepped away. I have not mentioned the COI issues again either. My concern though is that editor Richard Keatinge won't be able to edit the article effectively, and make the type of major changes he also believes are required, to bring it 'up to standard.' That is all I have ever said is needed. That has always been a major factor in this article and root cause to the dispute. Psyc12 & iss246 need to just let Richardkeatinge make some bold edits, in my opinion without reverting or opposing him every step of the way. He is a good editor and I think he will make the article more encyclopedic, if he feels he is able to do so. Finally I don't think psyc12's accusations below are fair or accurate, and I find their comments pretty offensive actually, but anyway. My editing on a 'range of different articles' has been solid. Thanks for your fair assessment Atama. I'll leave it at that.Mrm7171 (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Atama. If I might add one more suggestion. Mrm7171 has a tendency to stick mention of I/O psychology in places where other editors feel it doesn't belong (e.g., epidemiology), insert their opinion rather than sources, or mis-cite sources (I gave a diff above). If they agree that if someone corrects such things, they will not undo the correction and argue about it, then this issue would be resolved. Thanks. Psyc12 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's fair. Right now I've been suggesting that Mrm7171 not focus on conflicts of interest, and use dispute resolution to settle arguments about content, and to not attack references to SOHP because they're from SOHP and not based on merit. To then declare that Mrm7171 not be allowed to include mention of I/O psychology, and be denied the ability to argue for such inclusions based on merit (and use dispute resolution to settle it) would be hypocrisy. If such a thing were to be implemented, it should be done as a community ban and should be two-sided. If Mrm7171 is to stay away from inserting such information, then the two of you should be warned to stay away from inserting SOHP-related information.

My concern is a long-running conduct issue from Mrm7171, which is targeting the two of you relentlessly. I'm not as concerned with what content Mrm7171 is interested in inserting. My goal isn't to take a side in a content dispute, and I don't feel that it's within my scope as an administrator to do so, nor do I think it's right to do that. If Mrm7171 causes friction elsewhere on the encyclopedia away from you two, that can be dealt with at a later time. -- Atama頭 16:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Atama. It is just not true that I have fought Richard Keatinge's changes, and here Mrm takes the opportunity to accuse me of wrong doing yet again. Here’s a few of my interactions with RK on the talk page as we were making progress on the article:[117][118][119] Top of this section [120] And here’s some examples of Mrm7171 fighting with him.[121] [122] I have absolutely no problem in working with RK, and in fact just yesterday started incorporating his suggestion to remove clutter from the article.[123] Psyc12 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Atama. I correct something Mrm7171 said about me above. I have not disputed RichardKeatinge over edits. Iss246 (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that psyc12. For the record though, Richardkeatinge has never tried to make the much needed changes to that article, like I have attempted to do. One particularly good edit Richard Keatinge has attempted to add (with no less than 3 reliable sources attached) was then deleted months later, by iss246, saying it was a minor misattribution or such like and was not needed. When I tried to restore RichardKeatinge's edit, iss246 quickly deleted it again. Please see Richard Keatinge's solid edit, deleted by iss246 here: [124]. That minor edit, actually brought some neutrality to that part of the article and showed what other sources said on that particular topic.

Recently Richard Keatinge made a candid assessment of the article and why he believed a complete overhaul was required. See his comments here: [125]. It is worth reading these comments Atama. I totally agree an overhaul is needed. However until now I have been the only one who has dared, and nearly every single neutral and reliably sourced edit I have tried to make has been promptly deleted, under some guise or another. So yes, I have given up and stepped away. I do think that it would be very worthwhile however to the project if both iss246 & psyc12 could at least step back, (if not step away like I have done), just for a couple of days even, while Richard Keatinge can feel free to make the bold edits he has proposed in the diff above. As I said, he is a good editor and would improve the article greatly.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, all of this is giving me a lot more hope now. :) I have a lot of faith in what Richard Keatinge can do, as an experienced editor and neutral observer, to resolving a number of issues at the article. Just for the heck of it, I'm also going to put that article on my watch list just to keep an eye out for any conflicts that might flare up from any direction in the process. @Iss246: If you don't have a dispute with Richard going through that process, that is great. @Psyc12: If you also don't have a dispute, that's even better. @Mrm7171: If you are satisfied with Richard taking over the efforts to institute balance at the article, and plan to step away from the article and from interacting with either Iss246 or Psych12 (which I think is better for everyone) then I don't see any need for administrative action against anyone, yourself included. Maybe this can get settled amicably after all. -- Atama頭 00:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have already stepped away from the article. However my concern is that both psyc12 & iss246 have not agreed that there is need for a complete overhaul of the article, as RichardKeatinge has correctly stated. Nor have they agreed to even step back for a while to allow RK to do this much needed work. I have obviously tried to bring some degree of NPOV to the article, and failed, let alone the complete re-write which is definitely necessary. Therefore I don't think Richardkeatinge will go ahead Atama, unless these editors give these assurances. Can they please at least indicate their intentions here on this page as you have asked Atama?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

They've both expressed their confidence in Richard Keatinge making changes. And so I'll take them at their word. At the same time, the article is on my watchlist, so if the editors do later object I won't be unaware of it. -- Atama頭 15:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

SpongebobLawyerPants and WP:COMPETENCE

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.

---

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

Blocked some weeks ago for disrupting an AfD, much time and energy has been expended in an effort to rehabilitate this editor, but it has not stuck. Editor continues to upload unlicensed images even after having file permissions and copyright issues explained to them multiple times by multiple editors. Now they are inserting "horrific" and "abominable" into random articles [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], and at one point, "sexadactyl". A number of editors have gone out of their way not to bite this newbie, but at this point I think sheer WP:COMPETENCE comes into play, this editor will likely not become a productive one. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Though I'm not sure how much is a competence issue, and how much is just plain trolling - these latest edits look more like the latter to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me that the recent edits are trolling, or that they're to 'random articles'. They're all about mythical or legendary aliens or monsters, and to be honest from the existing descriptions they do sound kind of horrific. Saying so may well be original research or unencyclopedic, but I'm not convinced it's necessarily deliberate disruption. And sexdactly, although not a standard word, means 'six fingered'(er, not sex fingered as I originally wrote). I don't know if the beings in that article were supposed to have six fingers, but it seems plausible.

Have you discussed these particular edits with SpongebobLawyerPants? Olaf Davis (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

They were advised of the preference for encyclopedic language although it was not done formally since they seem to read and respond to edit summaries. Their inability to comprehend policy is frustrating. After advisories regarding WP:FRINGE sources and reliability, they persist in adding problematic sourcing [131], [132]. And after having image upload policy patiently explained to them again and again, they just don't or won't get it. Is the appearance of ignorance unintentional or willful? I honestly don't know, but it shows no signs of abating. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello LuckyLouie, isnt "sexadactyl" another word for "6-fingered" ? I didnt use "6-fingered" because it sounds too colloquial and of course i didnt know that "sexadactyl" is actually a "dirty" word. Yes, i inserted "horrifying" , "terrifying" and "horrific" into articles, but not random ones. They include bizarre creatures and extraterrestrial beings. I use such words to dramatize the style of the article. It wasnt my intention to violate the neutrality of these articles by using such words. Regarding the image thing: I still dont know what requirements to meet to successfully upload a picture. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at the complete history, including a number of inconsistencies in how they discuss from day to day, and other things I won't get into via WP:BEANS, I would conclude this is not only a troll, but a troll who has been here before. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed (incidentally, someone with six fingers is, unsurprisingly, a hexadactyl). Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I mixed it up with other languages where "sex" means six (Spanish "sexto / sexta" means sixth e.g.). Thats an contretemps, because in the same article a man claims to have been sexually harassed by an 6-fingered extraterrestrial being and in THIS article i said "sexadactly", thinking that this means "6-fingered". But the right expression seems to be "hexadactyl". LuckyLouie probably thought that "sexadactyl" was a kinky innuendo, but didnt intend this. I dont know whether this will change LuckyLouie´s opinion, but i apologize for this awkward mistake. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

SO why didn't you write "six fingered"? Not as horrifically abominable-sounding as ""sexadactyl"? Paul B (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Because it sounds too colloquial, i have already mentioned this above. But i would be more interested in LuckyLouie´s opinion. Im still thankful for your contributions in the Voronezh UFO article, but dont you think it is exaggeratedn to call someone "troll" because he did a linguistic mistake ? Im an honest person and i guarantee "sexadactyl" was a MISTAKE. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad I made useful contributions to the Voronezh UFO article. Unfortunately an alien probe seems to have deleted all memory of it from my mind, and from the article's edit history. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. "Six fingered" is not in any sense "colloquial". It's plain English. Paul B (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Is keeping someone around just because their user name amuses you a valid support? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that a reply to me? If so, this section is becoming very confusing indeed. What on earth are you talking about? Paul B (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@SpongebobLawyerPants: you asked my opinion re your "mistakes". I'm sorry, but someone whose response is "I dont have enough time to read Wikipedia´s enormous guidelines" when told they need to familiarize themselves with the basics of how Wikipedia works will likely always be creating "mistakes" that others will have to clean up. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

As i said before: Im thankful for your contributions in the Voronezh article Louie (because Paul B. mistakenly thought this thank was addressed to himself). But you dont have to clean up my mistakes. The "sexadactyl" thing was a random mistake and has nothing to do Wikipedia´s guidelines. Regarding the word "eyewitness": I have seen this word in many other articles. Thats why i mentioned it in the Voronezh article. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The mistake was yours, not mine. Your attempts to sound innocent are increasingly unconvincing and tiresome. Paul B (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• ""horrifying" , "terrifying" and "horrific" into articles, but not random ones. They include bizarre creatures and extraterrestrial beings. I use such words to dramatize the style of the article." - This is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not have "dramatic" articles; it has ENCYCLOPEDIC ones. This language fails WP:NPOV. Also, "I didnt use "6-fingered" because it sounds too colloquial" - it's, as noted, plain English, even were it correct, "sexadactyl", were it a valid word, would be the technical term and, thus, unpreferred. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There are even articles which have a racist tone or "invented" information. You should rather use your competency to improve those articles than complaining about innocuous words like "horrifying" or "terrifying". Using such words doesnt destroy an article´s neutrality. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't mean creating still more crap is justified. And yes, it does make an article non-neutral: "horrifying", "terrifying" and "horrific" are all value judgements, not objective descriptions. (And if those other articles, which I notice are not named, are so bad, fix them.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• • So has this discussion cleared up any concerns about trolling for anyone? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You should be extremely careful about insulting people publicly and calling them "troll". I know i did some mistakes, but you have no right to call me troll. I dont know how high your level of education is, but such insults are considered to be disrespectful. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Lawyerpants you should probably read (yes another policy) WP:NLT before you start skating any further on that thin ice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Spongebob's response to Dennis was uncivil but I don't see how you could possibly see a legal threat in what he said. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You cant accuse me of legal threat. Unlike many other editors who want me to be deleted, i highly respect the freedom of expression. Dennis Brown may insult me whenever he wants, i dont care, but he embarrasses himself by permanently accusing other editors of trolling. Thats why i said "You should be extremely careful about" "--SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps an uninvolved admin can now take a look and close this. My opinion, that we are having our collective chains yanked, has not changed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I did a quick scan of their work. Nearly or all of their work is, at best, unencyclopedic non-RS'd work writing about hoaxes. At worst their overall work might be just pulling Wikipedia's leg. Also seems to not have expressed any desire and even expressed disdain for trying to do it right. If, very quickly there is a sincere recognition of the problem, the commitment and (shortly later) effort to learn how to do it better and do so, suggest one more chance. If no, not. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Im not an anarchist ignoring any guidelines. I just said i cant read the whole guidelines but become familiar with them gradually by publishing articles or doing useful contributions. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, a bunch of people are telling you what you are doing is not useful, quite the opposite. So, right now do your darndest to try to understand why they are telling you that before you edit further. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Except your contributions are not useful, and you're refusing to listen to everyone telling you this, instead making personal attacks at those who are trying to tell you that your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I respect and listen to your advices. I even apologised for my mistakes. Im a remorseful person and unlike you, i dont call other editors trolls or insult them. You pretend to be a moralizer, but you dont dont even accept apologies or respect newbies, who did some mistakes. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

In your post I just see an argument that what you are doing is fine, not acknowledgement of the need to change and commitment for taking steps to do so. Is that your stance? North8000 (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• How about a topic-ban against anything paranormal, UFO, or whatever ... see if we can actually get encyclopedic work out of him for 6 months DP 00:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I dont know how good or bad the quality of your education level is, but it is not democratic to ban a whole topic or to demand that. You shouldnt call me (or indicate that im) stupid, as you dont even understand the principles of democracy. You should rather read the definition of democracy and stop threatening me permanently with bans. I respect your opinion and advices, but one cannot simply ban a whole topic and insult other editors. I would be ashamed of such a horrible behaviour. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Have i ever called you (or indicated) that you're "stupid"? Suggesting that without proof is a personal attack. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We have a set of rules you agreed to, and you keep breaking them. A topic ban would allow you to continue to editing the project, but NOT in areas that are causing you problems - indeed, you're about 2 steps away from an indefinite block. A topic ban is your best friend at this moment. DP 12:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dont hide the truth, you said some rude things in my own talk page. But as a democratic and honest person, i even tolerate this. Why dont you unleash the gentleman in you by blocking a new editor who did some mistakes but apologised for that and whose contributions and articles are undeservedly denounced as trolling ? --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please provide a WP:DIFF of anything "rude" that I have ever said on your talkpage - otherwise, one of my colleague admins will unfortunately be quite likely be forced to block you for personal attacks - see this clarifying information on unfounded statements. DP 12:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"...bizarre failure to read about...", i consider that to be rude. This phrase should have been "...bizarre reluctance to read about...", because the first phrase indicates that im illiterate. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If you really want to block me, than do it. As i said before: Unleash the gentleman who is lurking deep in your heart. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Misbehavior and goading people into blocking them? This seems like someone who is not here to be constructive. Empty apologies given above with no actual acknowledgement of what they did wrong are insufficient and to me they just reinforce the suggestions given earlier that this editor is playing everyone else here for entertainment value. I'm going to take this editor's most recent suggestion, and block them. -- Atama頭 17:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

• Indef block per WP:NOTHERE. Evidence is overwhelming that Dennis is correct. Let's get it done and not give this person the satisfaction of tying us up in knots about it. BMK (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support (I'm always available for block review on any block) but as I stated above I already indef-blocked the editor. And yes, it was per the evidence given by many above, including Dennis Brown, as well as the editor's own response to these allegations. -- Atama頭 22:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I missed that - obviously a good block. BMK (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Good block. User was obviously WP:NOTHERE, and we don't have to answer whether that was because of competence or trolling. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• I support this as well. When trying to work with him prior to his first block, it was quite clear that he was not even trying to be constructive or listen to anyone about the things he was doing wrong. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 26 March 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.

Rampant sock 23.240.42.216

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

---

While I think I'd be entitled to squash this one myself, it would be better if someone less involved in the area does it. Its edits consist entirely of reverts with offensive edit summaries. The edit summaries indicate a well-known large sock family, but my memory isn't working properly today. Zero^talk 13:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked and removed talk page vandalism, needs everything rolled back though. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Found out how to do it, but I need to install a script and Wikipedia isn't allowing me to create User:Dougweller/common.js. The edit field flashes and vanishes, leaving no field to edit in. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits reverted but not by me. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If you ordinarily use WikEd, it's been acting up; try disabling it to create your .js page. All the best, Miniapolis 21:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

IP is back with the same type of reverts (with POV or offensive edit summaries). Started up again just minutes less than 24 hours after the 36 hour block expired. Meters (talk) 02:11, 27 March 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.

Roosh V

For the last 6 weeks this article has been under assault by the following two single-purpose accounts (obviously the same person), whose purpose is to defame the subject of the article in any way possible:

• Elmech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Egirl90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Doixir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Added – Smyth\^talk 13:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

After ignoring repeated requests to discuss their issues on the talk page, today they made their first talk page edit ... which was to delete the discussion about them and insert forged comments from another user to make them appear biased.[133]

I request an indefinite block of both accounts. – Smyth\^talk 12:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT, do you think? Guy (Help!) 13:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that Egirl90 just overwrote this section with their own comment, which I reverted. - MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I just gave a final warning to Egirl90. No indef blocks w/o a final warning, IMHO. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

They have continued the same pattern of behavior after the warning.[134] – Smyth\^talk 13:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've given a final warning to Elmech. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

They have continued edit-warring.[135][136] Please block both accounts. Even a cursory examination of their edit history shows that they are the same person making the same edits. – Smyth\^talk 02:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Egirl90 has gone a talk page spamming spree it seems. Special:Contributions/Egirl90. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Egirl90 has been given a 48 hour block ... for harassing me!!! Bit harsh, but nevertheless the edit warring was annoying. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Never mind that, will an admin please explain why we should not indefinitely block BOTH accounts for the following things:

• Being single-purpose accounts which exist for the sole purpose of attacking a living person.
• Persistent edit-warring over a period of weeks despite repeated warnings.
• Total failure to make even a pretense of collaboration despite repeated requests.
• Severe abuse of article and project talk pages, including deletion of discussion about them on two separate occasions, and forgery of other users' comments.

Again, I say BOTH accounts. Policy says that sanctions are imposed against individuals, not accounts. There's not even any legitimate reason for them to have two accounts; all it does is make communcation with them more difficult (not that they've ever responded to communication in any useful way). – Smyth\^talk 12:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The abuse is continuing and a third sockpuppet has been created. Can we please get some admin intervention? – Smyth\^talk 13:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm too sleepy to look into this further, let alone to take administrative action. However, I'll say that first appearances don't suggest single-purpose accounts which exist for the sole purpose of attacking a living person in the disruptive sense of the blocking policy. Rather, the editor seems to be piling more detail (apparently backed up by sources) to what's already in an article. While I don't think that obnoxiousness excuses obnoxiousness, the list of the biographee's book titles don't suggest a more or less innocent person is now being libeled outrageously by some monomaniac. (NB I am not excusing puppetry, the multiple posting of somewhat incoherent messages, etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Irrespective of the content of their edits, their continual edit-warring and complete refusal to engage in discussion is the real problem here. – Smyth\^talk 14:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

They have now been blocked for 1 week for breaking the 3RR. [137] – Smyth\^talk 11:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Stmullin

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.

---

During new page patrol, I came across Super-team and nominated it for AFD as a non-notable neologism. [[138]]

1. Subsequently it was speedily deleted by Kuru as a copyright violation, then immediately recreated by the user again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Super-team&diff=601133567&oldid=601106145
2. Personal attacks/general incivility resulting from the user against kuru User_talk:Stmullin#Only_warning
3. The user progressivly added back in the original content from the deleted article.
4. I deleted the most blatant copyvio https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super-team&diff=601206685&oldid=601206352, and was promptly reverted [[139]]
5. I tagged the article for speedy copyvio https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super-team&diff=601209862&oldid=601209677 and the speedy tag was removed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super-team&diff=601211140&oldid=601209862
6. I warned the user about deleting speedy tags https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stmullin#March_2014
7. The user has now reported me to arb enforcement (with a highly malformed report)(probably thinking there were doing something like making a report here) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=601213012

Major trouting needed, possibly a WP:CIR block, I dunno. We report, you decide. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've speedily closed the AE report for all the obvious reasons.  Sandstein  17:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't see anything that makes it suitable for deletion via G12 at the moment and neither in the versions Kuru deleted. It's a bit concerning that an admin deleted this twice when it doesn't meet G12 and also can't close an AFD. I haven't looked at whether it is a notable term, and I suspect it may not be, but it seems to me that Stmullin is justified to be pissed off at how their good-faith contributions have been dealt with. If anyone needs trouting it's Kuru. SmartSE (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? In the revision right before the first deletion (the 23:57 24 March 2014 revision, sorry, non-admins), there is a poorly-formatted bulleted list. The introductory sentence to that list is paraphrased (probably too closely), but the list itself is lifted word-for-word from the first source cited (other than the inconsequential change from numbering to bulleting). For reference, it is the list that starts on page S3 in the pdf. I don't really have time to comb through the rest of it (the most cursory of spot checks show nothing else, but my find function in the pdf doesn't seem to be working, and I haven't checked any of the other sources), but to say that there's nothing that makes it suitable for a G12 might be premature. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed that section from the current version and continued a discussion on the talk page as I think it's too long a quote to qualify for fair use. I also couldn't find any problems with the rest and given that the user in question has said, on the talk page, they were using a claim of fair use for the long quote, and so probably understand our copyright rules, I think it's reasonable to AGF and assume that the rest is fine. Dpmuk (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: I also couldn't search the text in the pdf, but I skim read it and couldn't find anything that was copied word for word. G12 requires it to be unambiguous copyvio and also for all the content to be copied, so I'm 99 % confident that G12 can't apply. SmartSE (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally, while I can't view the version in question, going by the current version I'm reluctant to criticise the admin. Nominally the article may not have meet the G12 criteria so perhaps what they should have done is blanked the entire article until it can be properly investigated.

But let's be realisitic here. We've just established that as always, our board for investigating copyright violations remains understaffed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive260#Copyright help needed. And the sources used for the other sections appear to be books and other offline sources which will be difficult to check the article against.

So if half the article is an unambigious copyvio, I don't really trust the sole contributor to not have violated copyright in the rest. Rather than wasting our contributors time making sure they haven't I don't mind if an admin somewhat oversteps the mark and just deletes such nonsense. If this pissed of the contributor, I don't really give a damn.

They can either learn to respect copyright and our copyright policies or bugger off. The simple fact is, considering the amount of time wasted on them (remembering that many copyvios are only caught months or years later resulting in large chunks which have been worked on my many different editors being deleted), copyvios are IMO the most serious problem we have here on wikipedia and there's nothing wrong with sending the message to contributors that they need to take copyright seriously when writing. And I say this as someone who has probably only dealt with less than 20 and all fairly simple cases.

Even if you consider this harsh, consider whether the contributor will really be happier if their entire article was blanked for several months for anyone to actually deal with it?

And as for inappropriate admin behaviour, how many admins do you think would actually just delete the ambigious copyvio and leave the rest without checking it all against any of the alleged source material, despite the fact that this is clearly inappropriate? And much more serious to boot since it means that the possible copyvio content may not be checked or picked up for months or years, meanwhile many contributors waste their time on it.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but did you check it against all the other sources, too? It's not unheard of for people to copy bits of text from various sources and stick it all together, and that it's from multiple sources doesn't make it ineligible for G12. I agree that if the list was the only thing directly copied, then speedy deletion on copyright grounds isn't applicable, but I don't know that to be the case after only checking one possible source, and I don't think it's totally unreasonable for Kuru to have made a "where there's smoke, there's fire" type assumption, even if there wasn't any further copying from that single source. It might have been the objectively wrong choice, but like Nil Einne, I'm not sure I can fault Kuru for making it, given the information available to them at the time. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

'There were no violations' and the character assassination is intolerable. How am I suppose to deal with administrative ignorance? Stmullin (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It's already been established you copied the very long list (detailed enough that involved a significant amount of creativity), word for word in the current version and from what I understand, apparently in the older version. You made a very weak and poorly expressed claim of fair use but that's about it. This is a copyvio and the fact that you continue to deny this suggests that I was right, you either don't understand, don't care or both about copyright and how we deal with it on wikipedia (including our requirement that our content be under a free licence). Until you do, it's difficult to trust you to work with articles or that your claim that the rest of the article wasn't copyvio. You may consider this harsh, I don't care. I'm perfectly fine with being soft with new editors, even when I find them a bit disruptive or hard to deal with, but not when it comes to copyright and they show no desire to learn about how to deal with it. Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

In fact it's worse than I thought. The version I saw was after Gaijin tried to remove the copyvio where you had added the statement that content was "quoted" [140]. Which is very poorly expressed but could be taken as an assertation of fair use and that the content was directly copied from another copyrighted source.

Before that, you didn't even make this unclear assertation of fair use [141]. You just made a point blank copyvio, effectively claiming that this content was your own work and released under the CC-by-sa and GFDL licence as required by our terms of use (and as mentioned in every edit window), when you had actually copied the entire list which involved a significant amount of creativity word for word and didn't make it clear this had been done. I'm guessing it was the same in the speedy deleted articles. The more I look at this, the more sure I am of my original assertation.

P.S. For those wondering why you can't search the PDF, try copying it. You will likely get nonsense. This PDF apparently uses special embedded fonts with a different character set, most likely as a form of copy protection a practice which sadly happens on occasion despite all the problems it causes.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I was in compliance with APA and your suggestion that I did not make every effort to comply with Wikipedia standards, which are not the same, is inappropriate. I understand your need to protect new administrators but not when you engage in character assassination with them . . . if you are using copyright as an excuse to bully people then we need to take this to Wikimedia. I am very responsible with my articles and spend many hours refining and collaborating with others. To be gunned down for no violation is unacceptable. APA is accepted by most reasonable people.Stmullin (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

'YOU all owe me a public Apology'Stmullin (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Per [142] the article has been redirected to HPT mooting the copyright/content issue (unless revdel is needed). So only various possible conduct issues would remain. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reported this to Wikimedia as harrasment.Stmullin (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Being advised to please follow the rules you agreed to when you got here is not harassment. Copyright violations and close-paraphrasing are hazardous to this project. DP 19:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The rules were followed . . . now it is your turn to follow rules . . . ignorance can be cured. Stmullin (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been quite clearly shown that you did not. We rely on people to overcome their ignorance of the rules by a) reading them and b) changing their behaviour when those rules are clearly explained. Simply saying "I used APA" does not excuse the copyright violation - only small direct quotes can ever be used. You would be wise to re-read the rules, accept that you were in error, and stop acting like you've been personally violated - it's YOU who put this project in legal jeopardy, so back away slowly and don't do it again DP 20:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear what "I was in compliance with APA and your suggestion that I did not make every effort to comply with Wikipedia standards, which are not the same, is inappropriate." actually means. How does this apply to your evident violation of our copyvio policy? I don't see anywhere above that you have shown that you haven't violated our copyvio policy or that you won't do so in the future. And Wikimedia does not govern us and isn't going to get excited about this. Dougweller (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"evident violation of our copyvio policy" is a blatant lie. Stmullin (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Stmullin dial the rhetoric down a notch. Demanding apologies is all well and good but I don't see anyone here that actually agrees with you. I'd suggest dropping the WP:STICK and try and not be a WP:DICK cause that's the way this comes across. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. As I said above, in the revision that Kuru originally deleted (the first time), you included a bulleted list that was word-for-word copied from this PDF. While you had identified that document as a general source for the article, you did not explicitly attribute your extensive copying from the text to that source, and furthermore, you did not enclose the entire quotations in quotes or use any other sort of contextual indication that it was a direct quote. That makes it a copyright violation. The question of whether G12 was an appropriate rationale is a question of whether the entire article was copied from somewhere. Regardless of whether the entire article was copied or not, though, that copied list itself was a copyright violation, as it was copied without any indication of such or attribution. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

(EC) APA is a style and referencing guide. It helps you avoid plagarism concerns in an academic setting. It doesn't AFAIK tell you much about how to deal with copyrighted content and ensure that in a colloborative encyclopaedia released under a free licence, your content is compliant with the licensing requirements. (For that matter, AFAIK APA doesn't really tell you much about dealing with copyright issues in any setting. I assume you understand that plagarism and copyright are only very loosely related.)

In the particular case of wikipedia, this means that your content needs to be released under a compatible licence if it's not your own work and the terms of this free licence should be complied with. If you are using work which is not available under a free licence, you need to ensure the content is used in an appropriate way allowed under copyright law. More to the point, in the case of wikipedia. you need to ensure you comply with WP:NFCC, which means that it needs to be clear if there is any copyrighted content copied verbatim and not used under a free licence. There are also other requirements like requiring minimal use etc we require to ensure that our content largely remains freely licenced which aides reusers.

When you violate our copyright requirements you make problems for reusers. For example, people would likely assume the list you copied was under a free licence as there was nothing to suggest otherwise but clearly it's not.

Also, while there's probably little legal risk to the foundation, this doesn't mean there isn't a problem for wikipedia. The simple fact is, anyone reading the early version of the article I linked to would likely assume that as per out TOS, policies and guidelines, the list was under a free licence when it was not. Where are therefore making incorrect assertations about the copyright status of the list.

For you to not understand this as a new editor (if you are one, if you're saying your not then I'm fine with that but it makes matters even worse), I consider barely tolerable. As I've said while I'm perfectly fine new editors not understanding our policies and guidelines that well in the general case. But I'm particularly prickly about the case of copyright because of the amount of time it wastes when users violate copyright and do think there is a responsibility for new editors to at least try to understand such a fundamental principle of wikipedia before they cause problems which can waste very significant amounts of time.

Still if you had made an effort to understand and learn when plenty of other editors before me said there was a problem, there would be no point worrying about it too much any more. But you didn't and your comments here suggest you still don't care. This I consider intolerable and I'm not going to apologise for criticising this.

P.S. I perhaps didn't really properly explain why I disagree with Dpmuk that we should AGF that the rest of the content was okay, since I missed that comment. Firstly, I don't know if anyone is suggesting there's any real bad faith involved, definitely I didn't intend to suggest any. (Some may suggest not caring about copyright is acting in bad faith, I don't agree.)

The problem is when an editor doesn't understand copyright and how it interacts with wikipedia, acting in good faith doesn't prevent them violating copyright. What I initially saw was concerning enough. Now that I've that the editor didn't even make the 'quoted' claim initially and their replies, these more or less prove IMO that we have no guarantee the editor really understands any of this so IMO the only choices for the original article were deletion or blanking and listing it as a copyright problem until (probably months later) someone got around to dealing with it.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I do understand copyright, I have complied with every request for edit, have never put this project at risk, and I am dedicated to curing ignorance.

Stmullin (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that it isn't true. When multiple experienced editors are trying to tell you what you did wrong, don't dismiss their concerns and deny all of it, listen to their concerns and fix what you did wrong. Failing to do so can lead to being blocked. If you want to cure ignorance, begin by not being willfully ignorant yourself when others are trying to help you. -- Atama頭 21:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah ha doing a blockquote was the appropriate solution . . . why didn't anyone suggest that?????Stmullin (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

1) the solution was don't create an article on a topic that already exists. and 2) don't make almost the entire content a copy paste since even if attributed, it probably isn't fair use and thus still a copyright violation. but since you did not in any way indicate that your content was in fact a quote, how were we to suggest that you rendered the quote incorrectly. You created the article as if you were the author, we cannot read your mind. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone still cares, the pdf becomes searchable if you print to pdf and open the result in Preview or whatever your equivalent is. The google-cached version is also searchable. This Duplicate detector report seems to show a lot of copying and/or close paraphrasing, which at first glance seems to be mainly confined to references and the list/table. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks as if other edits by Stmullin may also merit scrutiny. The first one I looked at had content copied/ close-paraphrased from here. Both contain, for example, the passage "it directly prompts the recognition that human beings tend to adopt authoritarian systems which can become controlling, manipulative and which perpetuate the status quo and thus lie in opposition to ideas of free will". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

There's more: Diff of Preschool. Source: here. Diff of Triangle Town Center: some of it is from here. Diff of Constructivism (philosophy of education): most of it was copied from here. Diff of Humanism (philosophy of education): source: here. I think there's enough to warrant opening up a CCI - @Justlettersandnumbers: what do you think? -- Diannaa (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa! I'd already come to that conclusion, but decided to get some sleep before doing anything about it (I've an early start tomorrow). I've blanked Humanism (philosophy of education) and listed it at WP:CP as a first step, but can't do more now. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I'm trying to give some guidance to this editor on my discussion page. I think that Stmullin has been acting in good faith but has done so without a proper understanding of Wikipedia's policies (especially in regards to copyright), and there is now something of a mess to deal with as a result. I'm trying to establish the fact that disputes over content are inevitable, and that not every criticism is an attack, and why it is important to follow our policies and guidelines. -- Atama頭 00:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Atama, you are good at that kind of work. I will go ahead and initiate the CCI case request. Thanks for your help and advice J-lan. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)~

We found 2 errors that were my errors and those are now corrected. I did not write the Humanism article but I did take information with citations from that page, information that was relevant to philosophy of education . . . those citations were not mine but taken from other Wikipedia articles. Humanism and Marie Montessori were the sources of other passages in question that were not my sources . . . so those will need to be tracked internally.Stmullin (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've used Outlook to block Wikipedia. I've correct my mistakes . . . now you can correct your own. Adious. Stmullin (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by User:Ranking Update

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bangladesh%E2%80%93Malaysia_relations

I've had to face vicious personal attacks from this user at the above talk page. Such ugly behavior is simply uncalled for; my edits were not a complete duplication and any issues could have been raised in a civil manner. This person's apparent concerns were later understood and addressed by myself, although he never raised them in the talk page, and instead mounted an edit war. He should be warned and asked to apologize for his highly abusive remarks.--Bazaan (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Linking to m:DICK is a borderline attack (it's often not considered one even though the essay itself says "Implicitly or explicitly calling people dicks is a dick-move: don't use this essay as a justification to do so.") but the edit summary here and here is more explicit. On the other hand, Ranking Update apologized for the insult here and toned down the rhetoric afterward. They even withdrew from the conflict completely. So there doesn't seem to be anything actionable at this point.

Keep in mind that you both violated the three revert rule at that article, and both were eligible to be blocked (now moot since the edit war has ended). That was completely inappropriate; discussion should have begun after the first, and at least the second revert from either of you, but it really got out of hand. Therefore your statement at the start of that discussion "your edit war is unacceptable" applies to you as well. Keep that in mind the next time this kind of conflict happens, or you might find yourself blocked for it. -- Atama頭 21:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUCH. K6ka (talk | contribs) 23:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I violated 3RR? I reverted twice and then went to the talk page.--Bazaan (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert 1, revert two, revert three. My mistake, you both met 3RR but didn't go past it. You still were edit-warring, the both of you, and you both at minimum merited warnings. All else I said still stands; edit-warring requires two editors. Let me also add, you made major changes to the article with absolutely no edit summaries, which meant that your changes were effectively unexplained, so it wasn't a huge surprise that Ranking Update objected to them. In fact, as I'm looking through the article history, your only edit summary usage was to complain to Ranking Update. I strongly suggest that you use edit summaries, the more the better, and they are especially important when making large changes to articles to prevent misunderstandings in the future. You can't expect people to be able to read your mind or figure out everything you're doing solely through context, it won't always be obvious to people. -- Atama頭 13:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• You're only allowed to revert ONCE before you go to the talkpage, else you're formally edit-warring DP 19:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll admit, sometimes (not often) I'll revert twice. If, for example, I undo a mistake, and leave a simple edit summary. Someone undoes my revert with an edit summary that seems confused. I may revert with a more detailed edit summary the second time. If I'm reverted again, I definitely won't revert a third time. But even those times are rare, I generally restrict myself to 1RR anywhere I go. It's hard for me to justify to myself a second revert instead of just talking to the person who reverted my revert, let alone anyone else. Even when I'm reverting something that really should be reverted, like a BLP violation or vandalism, I try to communicate with someone instead of edit-warring, if for no other reason than to let people know that there is disruption occurring and a block or page protection may be necessary. -- Atama頭 19:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks by MONGO

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.

---

Reporting personal attacks by MONGO. I would have reported this in a more timely fashion but because I have been away from my computer until now, I was unaware that he had chosen to continue personally attacking me - and another editor as well.

Links to his personal attacks and abuse of edit summaries are as follows: it started here[143] ("or is that not possible for you to understand?"), then escalated here[144] ("restore removal by moron...the goddamn source number 2 says one square mile it says it twice...read the source you idiot..."), and culminated here[145] ("fuck off"). On my talk page, I had asked him to back up and reconsider his attitude, Fuzheado had done the same on MONGO's talk page. Still, he chose to continue with the attacks. I get that when editing articles like the one he and I have been working on frustration can quickly turn to anger. Even so, I just can't see how, in any way, shape, or form he would think his words were necessary and justified. It looks like he has a history of blocks and warnings for incivility and personal attacks that goes back about 8 years. I think what he said today speaks for itself and I'll accept whatever an administrator decides is appropriate action (if any). I have no desire to see him punished but I would like to see something done that will make him think more than twice the next time he even considers talking to other editors in the same manner he did to me and Fuzheado. Responding as he did is just destructive and unhelpful. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I dunno. Seems marginal to me. Quote 1 doesn't rise to the level of a personal attack. Quote 3 has historically been defended on ANI as a legitimate comments to tell someone to find something better to do because it's not calling anyone a name so much as it's telling someone what to do. Quote 2, though, is clearly a personal attack. However, looking at the context it makes me question if someone was editing tendentiously by not reading the sources and insisting on removing content. So, not sure what action we can say warrants administrative intervention here.--v/r - TP 23:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears that Winkelvi was damaging the article and Mongo was trying to protect it from damage. It is understandable that Mongo got frustrated, under the circumstances. The result here is no action, unless somebody really wants to push it. Jehochman ^Talk 23:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've now taken a deeper look into this. @Winkelvi: Regarding your edit, I suggest you read your own source. "Hopes dimmed Sunday for finding survivors in the nearly one square mile of muck and debris left by a mudslide".--v/r - TP 23:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverting something I felt was incorrect, telling MONGO to take the issue to the talk page, and my backing off by not reverting any further...none of these things have any bearing on MONGO moving forward with the personal attacks. Obviously Fuzheado didn't think so either, since he placed a personal attacks warning on MONGO's talk page. Like I said, this isn't the first time he's done this. And been blocked for it. Just saying. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

We're not going to block him simply because you can't be arsed to completely read the source. You want to get someone blocked, try doing it because they didn't read the source next time. Period. At this point, take my WP:ANI Advice #17, learn from your mistake, and do better next time.--v/r - TP 00:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What source are you talking about, TParis? The one Winkelvi cited "mile-wide" to, this one, does in fact say "mile wide" and not "square mile", including in the very title of the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ask for him to be blocked. What I see you saying is because I may have made an error in editing, you won't do anything about his personal attacks and will give him a pass? That's about the stupidest reason for non-action by an administrator I've ever seen. Someone allegedly makes a mistake that doesn't harm anyone at all and is completely unintentional so they then deserve to be personally attacked? I'm speechless. Well, except to point out that the reference I added does, indeed, say mile-wide. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that because you reverted twice instead of reading the source leading to you getting called a moron, I'm not going to block Mongo. You should've read the sources before the revert. Your action is frustrating and earned you getting called a rotten name. Boo hoo. You failed to live up to standards and someone lashed out at you for it. I have zero sympathy. Learn from your mistake. Or don't, but my opinion of you right now is quite low. Especially because of your loaded "so they then deserve to be personally attacked" question which you portray yourself as a vulnerable and hurt child who is shielded by an aura of innocence. You're not. You screwed up, someone threw a mean word at you. Grow up, you're not going to lose sleep over being called a moron. And if you are, then you shouldn't go out in public, let along be editing Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 00:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Writ Keeper: Almost all of them?:

• [146] " nearly one square mile of muck and debris left by a mudslide that killed at least eight people"
• [147] "state geologist says the 1-square-mile mudslide"
• [148] "We have this huge square-mile mudflow"
• [149] "slide is about 1 square mile and up to 15 feet deep"
• [150] "The slide turned a square mile of Snohomish County into a wasteland of mud"
• [151] "quare-mile of mud and debris slid across the road"

These are cites already in the article.--v/r - TP 00:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• It is just conflicting sources, a misunderstanding. Mongo probably needs to tone it down a notch or two, but it isn't blockworthy. No need to get that bent out of shape. If he was here, I would just give him a gentle slap on the back of his head and say "don't do that please". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• ...With a fish. Honestly, I'd love just once to see what good has ever come of ever calling someone an "idiot" or other insult on Wikipedia. And why do established, productive editors insist on doing it so often? -- Atama頭 00:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Its just a lack of control, frustration. On hot topic articles like this, I tend to be more tolerant. I think you have to if you want to serve the encyclopedia best. We are all human, these topics get us pumped up. You say something, but you don't reach for the block button. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I tend to think it's appropriate when all respectable forms of communication fail to convey the point.--v/r - TP 00:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes, that is true, you just have to be careful to not skew the POV in some discussions by means of blocks. Honestly, I labor over it when I'm forced on POV articles, you can make the total situation worse with a couple of one sided blocks. This, however, was a simple misunderstanding. I gave him a formal trout on his talk page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A equal trout is deserved by Winkelvi as well. A quick look at his comment to Mongo shows WP:IDHT "Some reporting has stated square mile, yes. But which reference are you going to believe?", WP:OWN "it's all largely content I wrote to begin with in the Oso article, so I also have investment in the article", and Winkelvi's own comments violate WP:CIVIL when he patronizes Mongo "I'll give you another chance to try again with a cooler head". Trouting Mongo is about as helpful as a one-sided block.--v/r - TP 00:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I will leave any additional trouts to you, but I am not sure if some of that is simple ignorance or IDHT. Some explaining may cure the problem. Mongo's very light trout was because he's been here long enough to know he was over the line with civility. I didn't find the "I'll give you.." comment as abrasive as "fuck off". But I will be happy to converse with Winkelvi on his talk page if you think that would be beneficial. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done No offense taken if you fill in any gaps. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, prefer Cutthroat trout over all others. I moved the material to a standalone article. Not going to do that again! After that ridiculous arguments about how many were missing be "many", 176 or whatever...then the page was moved without discussion...then when working on updating the size of the slide, I get reverted twice. I got pissed and then an admin plops a template on my page warning me. Okay, whatever, my edit summaries were obnoxious and I apologize to all. Time for a beer.--MONGO 01:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

See, was that so hard? :) This outcome is far more desirable than a block and I'm glad MONGO stepped up to defuse the situation. For the record, though, I'm pretty disappointed in the folks responding to @Winkelvi: above. It's one thing to be blasé about taking action, but it's completely inappropriate to say he deserved the abuse and name calling. A personal attack is against the guidelines, period. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a moronic idea. Winkelvi is not a 'victim' here. It is not a matter of what he deserves. What matters is what he got and how his actions contributed to it.--v/r - TP 02:51, 26 March 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 Edits by Friendsofross at Ross Mirkarimi

Friendsofross (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

69.12.245.181 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

At the Ross Mirkarimi page, Friendsofross has for several days been removing sourced material. IP user 69.12.245.181 (who I believe is the same as "Friends of ross") has been doing the same. Both these editors have been warned repeatedly not to do this on their Talk pages by several different editors. Several different editors have likewise been rv-ing Friendsofross's edits.

Can we do something about this? It's been going on too long and is getting tiresome? Chisme (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Today, user 69.12.245.181 came back and rv-ed it twice. This despite new warnings on his/her Talk page. 18:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, this person is very persistent. It's ridiculous to try and remove information about the very prominent domestic dispute which caused Ed Lee to suspend Mirkarimi—that event was foremost in city news for months, and it polarized a lot of politicians. No respectable biography of Mirkarimi can ignore it. The IP should be blocked for edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The IP and Friendsofross are the same person. 69.12.245.181 wrote a note on my Talk page (as an IP) and signed it "Friendsofross." This "friend of Ross Mirkarimi" has not contributed to any article on Wikipedia except Ross Mirkarimi. He aims to remove what the thinks is an embarrassing incident in his "friend's" past. Chisme (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The information is still there; the IP is only removing it from the lead. Whether this controversy is important enough to be mentioned in the lead should be discussed on the talk page. But there's been no talk page edits since October 2012. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion on the Talk page. I don't see why one disruptive user should be permitted to erase the work that several editors resolved on in many months' past. 01:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Large amount of properly sourced content is being continually deleted from Providence Religious Movement 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 has been some non-conclusive discussion over some sources on the Jung Myung Seok / Providence [Religious Movement] article. This article has been brought up here on the WP:ANI page a couple times before, but the particular issue of sources wasn’t settled. More recently, 12 third party news sources and 4 direct quotes of the organization’s founder have been removed without much discussion. You can see the removed content in this revert [152]. The article has two editors immediately removing the content and two editors arguing that the material should at least be up for discussion. The last admin to really get involved with the article, Richwales, gave some useful advice for the article and even did the work to verify some of these sources [153], but much of the content following his suggestions keeps getting removed. He has since removed himself for being too wp:involved. If we could have some more editors take a look at the material in contention perhaps we could make some progress on this article. Macauthor (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sam Sailors removal of the 12 sources and direct quotes also restored sourced content deleted/whitewash? by Macauthor here Much of the editing on the article appears to be whitewashing. Jim1138 (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this a content dispute, as "the particular issue of sources wasn’t settled" could seem to indicate, or is it a follow up on your remarks here where you say I am inserting pornographic material in the article, and that you believe my editing is contentious and in supposedly violation of WP:NPOV, which I have asked you to bring up for community discussion? Either or, as I in my reply on the article talk page, in this edit, have argued the case quoting guidelines and policies, I'd apreciate if you did the same here.

Uninvolved editors trying to grasp the situation in Providence (religious movement) should be aware, that MrTownCar (t c) has disclosed that both he and Macauthor (t c) are members of this movement. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 13:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I said that it had the appearance of contentious editing and I was pointing out that you had only commented on the pornographic source without discussing the other sources. I apologize if I offended you but the real issue here is whether the content being discussed is valid, if or how much of it is white washing, or whether it is informative to keep all or some of the content in the article. I feel that it is holding the article back to keep reverting to previous versions that do not include more recent events about the subject. Macauthor (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

MrTownCar (talk · contribs) may speak for himself but he does not speak for me. He disclosed that he is a member which is clearly Wikipedia:COI and his edits have not always been sourced very well, but his knowledge of the movement may be of some use. Do you have an opinion on the material you have removed? Macauthor (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

So this is a question about contents then. That belongs on the article talk page, and would be facilitated had the two SPAs not retorted to accusations[154][155] on the second lowest level of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement without substantiating them the least bit quoting guidelines and policies. Despite being asked to. [156][157]

What does belong here is a discussion of the long-term tendentious editing we have witnessed on Jung Myung Seok and now on Providence (religious movement) (the former was recently merged into the latter). Previously this has been brought up in e.g.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive785#Looking for uninvolved admins to watch Jung Myung Seok,
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#Macauthor is being a pain in the patuckus,
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Long-term edit warring at Jung Myung Seok,
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#disruptive editing on Jung Myung Seok page, and
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 68#Jung Myung Seok.

Yes, large amounts of contents with challenges related to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:RS have been added to and removed from the article for years (long before I started watching it in October 2013), and has been discussed in length on Talk:Jung Myung Seok and has been up for discussion on e.g.

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 141#Can a new religious group be a reliable source for its own trial?,
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive169#Jung Myung Seok, and
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 147#Use of unverified or planted references in article about Jung Myung Seok.

To put it briefly, the hallmark of Macauthor (t c) and MrTownCar (t c) is to stick in various amounts of apologetic material casting doubt about the fairness of Jung's two convictions of rape and his 10-year prison sentence, and material questioning the credibility of the witnesses and the validity of their testimonies, while at the same time removing material critical to Jung. Prompting Drmies to say "I gotta say, that's about the worst I've seen, BLP-wise. ... I hope some other admins will scrutinize the competing versions and the apparent interests of the two main editors responsible for that atrocious piece of promotional apologetics." A few examples out of hundreds: Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff. Among the reverting/restoring editors I see e.g. Shii, ukexpat, Ravensfire, Lectonar, Richwales, Harizotoh9, Drmies, and myself.

When the two editors continued editing in January and February, including a SOAP edit like this deleting sourced content at the same time, and in apparently perfect English translation of a Korean source add:

"President Jung was convicted because false information was given to the court."

then I find that Harizotoh9's revert one day later was well done and well within BRD. Harizotoh9 followed up by posting three new talk page sections with his concerns. Macauthor responded to none of them, but posted their own new section suggesting Harizotoh9 to "ask before you remove content" (WP:OWN), before Macauthor reverted back to their latest prefered version. And here is where I come in the following day first posting my comments on the talk page, then reverting clearly indicating WP:BRD in my edit summary to get the dialogue going and avoid warring.

Since bans have already been mentioned in previous ANI threads, I suggest other editors chime in with their opinions on the situation. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 20:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

how loquacious sam you spent most of your reply rehashing what is well known. I wish you spent a quarter of that time answering valid question put for to you.... if I may take a quote from you "So this is a question about contents then. That belongs on the article talk page" Macauthor and I have repeatedly asked on the article talk page and your personal talk page for explanation of your reversions which you have yet to address two weeks after this last set of reversions. Please spare us the pontification and answer macauthors question posted on your talk page and feel free to show us what independent research you have done on the subject matter the way richwales did in the past.MrTownCar (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

seems all the diffs except one had nothing to do with me.MrTownCar (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen any suggestion by Sam Sailor that he has taken the time to carefully review the material posted by Macauthor. I am sorry no neutral sysop is weighing in on this.MrTownCar (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"You can see the removed content in this revert [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Providence_%28religious_movement%29&diff=597514401&oldid=597396517]"

Part of the information in the above diff is cited to various providence related sites. I first came to the Jung page in late 2012 because I found that it was relying upon unreliable primary sources by the Providence religion and was poorly written. Myself and others have been trying to remove these sources. For instance here we see User:Shii remove the sources in December 2012. But MrTownCar and Macauthor continue to insert them. I am completely opposed to these sources on numerous grounds.

• They are not WP:RS
• Violate WP:BLP
• WP:ABOUTSELF - These sources make claims about Jung's biography which are contested and need other sources to confirm, and are not simple uncontested claims.

This is completely ridiculous that we are still arguing and debating this to this day.

Moving past that, there are some elements of a content dispute to this as well. But the best place for that is WP:BLPN and other places. Not here. I am not that familiar with the sources, the language, with the subject matter, etc. I'm going to ask Wikiproject Korea as well to see if anyone there can assist. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, the sites I object to are:

• gospelofprovidence.com
• providencetrial.com
• providencecentral.com

These sources have been inserted, removed, inserted and removed for years. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Given MrTownCar (t c)'s disclosure of his COI and MrTowncar's assertion of Macauthor (t c) COI, their continuous whitewashing of Providence (religious movement), unwillingness to discuss issues except on their terms, and misleading edit summaries, a topic ban would seem in order. Macauthor: are you a member of Providence and/or related groups? Macauthor: do you have a conflict of interest here per WP:COI? Jim1138 (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

spare us the ad hominem attacks and kindly give a diff on my 'misleading' edit summaries. it might also help if you answer my question which you dodged on your talk page. MrTownCar (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not an ad hominem attack. Per wp:COI Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. If you have a COI, you should not be editing the Providence article or anything related to it. Jim1138 (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I do have a WP:COI and will no longer edit the article. But much of the content being kept from the article is extremely informative about the subject, most but not all is properly sourced by third party news sources (the rest are direct quotes from Jung himself and thus allowed depending on your interpretation of WP:BLP policy), and most of it is new material about more recent events relating to Providence that have never been up for discussion before. The more experienced editors have continually removed any content that does not deal with Jung strictly as a criminal or treat the religious movement as a cult. I have not and am not proposing the removal of negative content (unlike MrTownCar), but only ask that properly sourced material that informs readers about the other aspects of the religious movement and its founder be treated fairly and given proper place in this controversial subject. Macauthor (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

TO CLARIFY I SEEK TO REMOVE FALSE NEGATIVE INFORMATION FROM THE ARTICLE NOT SIMPLY NEGATIVE INFORMATION.MrTownCar (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

In a long talk page message 6 November 2013, here, MrTownCar (t c) writes about Jung Myung Seok

"I have read many of his sermons and his proverbs. The man has a love for God that is unparalleled and is obvious to those who have witnessed his life. [...] He underwent a sham trial and was accused by false witnesses."

While beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest, such opinions cast light over the NPOV challenges; a few examples:

• Unexplained removal of contents here
• Removal of material negative to Jung/adding of apologetic material here and here
• Removal of all material on Jung's rape convictions here
• Reverting of 55 intermediate revisions to a prefered version here (edit summary removed)
• Four days later the exact same thing here
• Reverts an edit by Shii, adding primary sources from Providence here, saying Shii has a "slanderous agenda" here, and repeats the same revert minutes later here. Then repeats the same revert here, calling Shii's edit "Continued vandalism" here, and repeats his revert for a fouth time here after being reverted by Ukexpat for whitewashing. This prompts Drmies to restore more acceptable version from one which promotes the subject with the use of unreliable sources and blames his victims--lest we forget, that's a BLP violation.
• Removal of material sourced form Korean National Police Agency et. al here
• Removal of socalled "planted articles" (Radio Austalia, News.com.au, and again Korean National Police Agency) here, quickly reverted by Richwales

The last entry above was in June 2013 but the pattern continues up to now, cf. contributions. Further a few examples of incivility, sock accusations here and here, and a bit of the usual WP:OWN here. Sam Sailor ^Sing 10:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

sam you are aware it is march 2014. You concede that everything above occurred before 2013 june almost 1 year ago. all of my edits recently get a clear edit summary to explain the basis unlike your repeated reversions with no explanations.MrTownCar (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to backup what Sam Sailor has said. This article and the JMS article that was finally merged into Providence have seen a great deal of white washing from Providence supporters. Certain edits are persistently made with various edit summaries, but always the same text despite objections. Anything negative, especially about JMS, is removed if at all possible. The allegations that have been made that negative articles are "planted" is disturbing as it shows a rather extreme mindset. Complicating this are language issues as many of the sources are in Korean or Chinese. Uninvolved editors with good Korean language skills and familiarity with some of the sources being used have helped in the past and would continue to help out here. Ravensfire (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: two brief points. Firstly the article contains 65, repeat 65, negatively written sources about JMS not one single neutral let alone positive source. Not sure I understand the concept of whitewashing with that as the foundation of the article. Secondly, I wrote to News Unlimited and they confirmed via email that they never wrote an article about JMS plain and simple. I dont appreciate your casting aspersions when you are uninformed of the content of my communication with them. I still have the email response from them and will be happy to forward it to you or anyone else who cares to see it.MrTownCar (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a difficult article to watch. There are at least two followers of Providence: MrTownCar (t c) and Macauthor (t c) who seem to be removing cited, negative matreial and adding propaganda 1 2 3. Most sources are in Korean, Japanese, or Chinese. While there are machine translators, the translations from these languages to English is cumbersome at best. As @Ravanes stated, having native speakers of these languages review sources and locate additional sources would be very helpful. @Macauthor has stated he is affiliated with Providence and will no longer edit the article. @MrTownCar has also stated his affiliation but continues to edit Providence despite a COI notification and request to use request edit. A topic ban for this area on Providence affiliates should be administered to reduce the constant whitewashing. Jim1138 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have made no edits since you sent the edit request notice to my talk page. Tell the story truthfully with NO PROPAGANDA or spin. My last edit was 4 hrs before you sent the notice. Please rertract your false and misleading statement Jim1138.MrTownCar (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Rationale: Macauthor (t c) and MrTownCar (t c) both have a substantial history of disruptive editing in articles related to Jung Myung Seok. With frequent violations of BLP, NPOV, and RS in attempts to white-wash articles, and with declared COIs, nothing indicates that they are here to build an encyclopedia.

Given this, I propose that Macauthor and MrTownCar be topic banned from editing all topics relating to Providence (religious movement) and Jung Myung Seok (both broadly construed) indefinitely. Jim1138 (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I would propose that we give a chance to the suggestion made by Jim 1138 previously that I use edit requests. Jim posted this to my talk page Monday 4 hrs AFTER my last edit. I am deeply disturbed that JIM posted a false accusation in the above section that I refuse to use edit requests...." but continues to edit Providence despite a COI notification and request to use request edit. ".... simply not true since I have made no edits since this was posted to my talkpage. Jim attempt to topic ban the most knowledge person on Wikipedia on JMS and Providence is not in spirit of Wikipedia especially when coming from a senior rollbacker who cant report objectively regarding my actions in the above ANI started by mcauthor.MrTownCar (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes a WP:SPADE is a spade. We have two problematic WP:SPA who clearly have an agenda. They edit no other articles. They are strong believers in Providence. I don't think they are here to build an encyclopedia.

There has no re-insertion of official providence source (eg. providencecentral.com) since February, and that's a start at least. But who's to say that they won't re-insert these sources when people stop paying attention to it?

As said above, it is a difficult article to watch and to try to sort through the claims. We need a lot more people fluent in Korean and Chinese languages. I just can't sort through any of these claims. I'm going to ask WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Korea for help. Most of the content of the article and sources are totally beyond me. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposed. The two users are WP:NOTHERE. Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• I will support a topic ban as proposed, but I'd prefer a site-wide ban + indefinite block. They edit nothing else, so what's the point of theoretically leaving the rest of the encyclopedia open to them, really? The disadvantage of topic bans is that they tend to invite skirting, testing the waters, and encroaching, making for more waste of constructive editors' time. I'm not suggesting these two would necessarily do that, but I just don't see the advantage of stopping at a topic ban where zealot SPAs are concerned. Bishonen | talk 16:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Firstly your statement about SPA is false. I made some edits on mustang page regarding Roush mustangs. I am prepared to add more material and pictures in due time. Considering you have never edited this article it would seem inappropriate to make a myopic suggestion as you have. May I ask how much time you spent reviewing the talk page from the October 2012 to present before making your recommendation?MrTownCar (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got the point of taking a conflict to ANI backwards; the idea is to get input from uninvolved editors and perhaps also admin action by uninvolved admins. I'm both of those. Piling-on by your old enemies/your old friends from article talk is less valuable than fresh eyes. And no, you may not interrogate me about my research. It was adequate for my needs. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

given that you are an admin with no prior involvement doesn't guarantee neutral analysis. given your recommendation of permanent site ban and your reply above you have proven my concerns about your ability to render an objective opinion.MrTownCar (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

MrTownCar, that goes without saying. Nobody on God's green earth would expect you to find a proposal to siteban you "objective", or to find the person who proposes it "neutral". If you reply again, could you try to do it without any bold? I can tell where the emphasis is without that. Bishonen | talk 12:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I was intimating your extreme position. skip the temporal topic block and topic ban and lets go for the permanent site ban.... seems very extreme to my view. There undoubtedly has been an evolution in my edits from when I first started this in October 2012. Most of the above complaints posted by samsailor in his first section have to do with macauthor and not me. I recently have made very pointed and critical edits with edit notes based on Wiki policy as I understand it but by no means have removed all negative or critical material of JMS. I have posted extensively on the talk page as well in an attempt to iron out some of the issues and there was progress made amongst contributors who have historically been at odds. The December portion of the talk page illustrates this. Furthermore, I have never utilized the request edit function that jim1138 suggested on 3/17 as I was awaiting to see where the ANI would end up (and of course I have made no edits at all since last Monday). 4 days later a topic ban proposal is made that mysteriously gets escalated to a permanent site ban for no apparent reason.MrTownCar (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposed. While the two users are clearly unable to edit with WP:NPOV in this topic area, I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt as to whether they're actually WP:NOTHERE. That said, I'd like to construe the topics under the ban as broadly as we can. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. An indefinite ban in general is too harsh. But this must be combined with a real attempt to improve the article. Which means recruiting foreign language speakers, and a review of sources. Preventing them from whitewashing the article is only a first step. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to getting more outside sources but please realize that there are antiJMS paid editors out there and one must be very judicious in the use of information. Again richwales posted his findings on the talk page from an objective native speaker regarding the Civil government article. We need more sources like that but they are only going to be reached by wikipedians approaching them and asking questions.MrTownCar (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support Bishonen's proposed site-wide ban + indefinite block as the preferred sanction, with the alternative support of a topic ban as initially proposed. The editors in question have made few or no other edits outside this topic, and nothing indicates that they are here to build an encyclopedia. Sam Sailor ^Sing 12:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

MrTownCar"please realize that there are antiJMS paid editors out there"

This is a pretty serious claim. Do you have any evidence? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC) @Harizotoh9: I was referring to Korean language sites such as Korean Wikipedia. Not aware of any on the English side.MrTownCar (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, well in that case you should bring up the issue there. If you have evidence of this you can have some action taken. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

More input is required here. Sam Sailor ^Sing 06:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban (my proposal) or a site-wide ban + indefinite block. Both editors have shown little interest in anything other than POV editing of Providence Jim1138 (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support for site-wide ban and indefinite block as proposed by Bishonen. Alternative support for topic ban broadly construed as proposed by Jim1138. PeterDaley72 (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support for either option, although I think both are essentially the same. Ravensfire (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support a site-wide ban + indefinite block. Or, as an alternative, a topic ban (my proposal). As Ravensfire pointed out, these would likely have the same effect. Both editors have shown little interest in anything other than POV editing of Providence Jim1138 (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threats from 87.161.208.6

Resolved

 – IP was blocked by another admin. --Diannaa (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The IP "87.161.208.6" is issuing legal threats towards editors, as well as ignoring the warnings that were issued to him, and instead turning them back as "threats". I presume the reverter did not revert his edits on fear of violating WP:3RR. K6ka (talk | contribs) 11:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Appears to be the IP account of WinxClubStella321 (talk · contribs).[158] Claims to be reporting anyone who reverts them to the police so that they can be blocked. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that the account in question posted this after being blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts

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 please talk to Lugnuts (talk · contribs) about his behaviour in Template talk:Reflist? His first edit in the discussion sets the tone for all his comments; they are dismissive, arrogant, rude, almost insulting, and basically, not relevant to the discussion at all. Any attempt to clean up the discussion is met with hostile reverts; he definitely needs to work on his civility. He is actively frustrating the discussion and I have no idea why. Please help. — Edokter (talk) — 13:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor: I'll just say that Lugnuts has made a fair number of comments at WT:FILM that might be considered questionable from a civility standpoint (I'd really prefer not to go diff-hunting as I'm hoping this won't become an action item, but...I'll do it if there's a feeling that it's necessary). While I don't doubt that he has the best interests of the project in mind (I haven't reviewed the above link and do not intend to), I do have concerns that he has trouble assuming good faith, especially with regard to IP editors, and sometimes does not word things as diplomatically as he likely could. I would hope it would just be a matter of bringing it to his attention that this is becoming problematic rather than any stronger action needing to be taken. DonIago (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Funny you should mention WP:AGF, DonIago, because that's what Edokter has failed to do. I believe the issue at Reflist is quite trivial (the column display on moblile devices), but that editor is clearly on a powertrip to edit my comments. After I've warned Edokter twice not to edit my comments, surprise, surprise, he comes here. I'm not the only editor who is concerned by Edoketer's attitude. Let the witch-hunt begin. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

And I am not the ony editor that is concerned about your non-constructive comments. Rule of thumb is to either hide or remove such comments, and it is a pretty common practice. Your continued reinstatement of your comments is disruptive and you are not contributing in any meaningfull way. Now, if you have anything remotely meaningfull to say, you are welcome to contribute. If not, do not be suprised to see your comments redacted in one form or another in order to keep the real discussion going forward. — Edokter (talk) — 14:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong here. I clearly see the display issue as trivial and I'm inviting more users to comment, which they have. That is the real discussion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Dude... I can summarize your general tone in this entire duscussion as follows: "What problem! There is no problem! See a problem? Don't use a phone!" You may see it as trivial, but other don't. And your attitude towards those that do see a problem is simply offensive, because you dismiss them as "trivial". That testifies as nothing but comtempt towards those you talk to. Oh and, according to your contributions, you have not invited anyone. — Edokter (talk) — 15:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Dude? Sorry, please don't talk down to me like that. You can do better. I've invited people to add to the discussion by reverting your crass edits to my comments. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want poeple to talk down to you, don't talk down to them. Reverting is not the same as inviting. And your latest comment is beginning to show signs of dillusion. "We established there is no problem"? Er... no; That is only your opinion. — Edokter (talk) — 15:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you both hold off on further comments until someone else has chimed in? I'm not sure that either one of you is currently helping the situation. Regards. DonIago (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I would love nothing more. But I'm affraid no one will see the delusional nonsense being spewed, causing the rest being forced to abandon the discussion. I have experienced it before; Lugnuts is applying a tactic of disruption and denial, doing nothing more then to prevent anyone else form talking about it, in order to "win" the discussion. So I really hope another admin will find a way to declare this discussion off-limits for Lugnuts, in order to reboot the conversation and focus on the actual problem. — Edokter (talk) — 15:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Dude... I can summarize your general tone in this entire duscussion as follows: The nasty man disagrees with me, so I'll blank/edit his comments until I get my own way. Waaa-waa-waaa this porridge is too hot. No one is being prevented from joining in, except for the people in your mind telling you this rubbish. Go back to your hash-cakes and hookers and chill out. Dude. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The only editor to violate policy directly is the OP [159] who keeps refactoring the discussion and removing the posts of other editors he doesn't like WP:TPO. Tend to agree with Lugnuts there is no problem to be solved but he is being decidely WP:DICKish and less than WP:CIVIL in the discussion.

Proposal:

1. User:Edokter is formally warned not to refactor other people's comments in talk page discussions.
2. User:Lugnuts is WP:TROUTed and
3. This dramafest is closed.

Any objections? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

None. Closed. Done. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What's your hurry, WCM? This is nowhere near ready to close. --Drmargi (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal rejected. I removed a completely non-constructive comment, which is allowed. No matter; I'll simply archive that trainwreck and start over. — Edokter (talk) — 19:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you need to read WP:TPO. I've moved on. Hopefully you can be big enough to do the same. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't "moved on" from this. Edokter, your removal of the comment here was completely in violation of our talk page guideline. Specifically, you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. What you reverted was neither a personal attack, nor vandalism, nor trolling. It was something you may consider uncivil (which is debatable, I don't consider it such) but even uncivil comments are not allowed to be reverted, as explicitly stated by our guideline. Consider this a formal warning to not do so again, repeating that behavior can lead to a block. This is not a proposal from me you can reject, it's a warning you can ignore, but at your own risk. -- Atama頭 20:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Atama, but I, respectfully, am going to reject your warning as well. You and I have obviously different interpretations of trolling. I did consider Lugnut's initial post trolling, for reasons I explained above. But I am done with this, just as Lugnuts. So it is not becoming an admin to come in after the fact and give me a kick in the behind afterward. Agree with TRM, someone please close this. — Edokter (talk) — 21:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You can be as respectful as you like, you were in the wrong here. If you're rejecting a warning, then the next stage is to issue a block to prevent future repeats of the same behaviour. Do you really want to push ad admin into a preventative block, as you refuse to accept you were wrong and broke policy? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can reject warnings respectfully or not, but that post you removed was not trolling, was not out of line, wasn't even uncivil, and your removal of it was wildly in contravention of WP:TPO. Given your refusal to listen to the previous warning and your insistence that you were not in violation of WP:TPO when you, in fact, were, let's be perfectly clear here: further refactoring or removing of other peoples' talk page comments like that will result in a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I said earlier, you can definitely ignore warnings. No action is going to result whether you accept them or not. It's no trouble to me if I'm ignored. The only consequence is that if you repeat the behavior under a mistaken belief that you were correct the first time, you're likely to be blocked. That's why I said, ignore at your own risk. Of course, if you don't do it again, then no harm either way. -- Atama頭 22:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

All, I will say this once: I refuse to operate here under the threat of other admins blocking me over the interpretation of a policy. I therefor intend to bring this to ArbCom unless such threats are rescinded. That is all. — Edokter (talk) — 23:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Take this to Arbcom and they'll throw it out, you're in the wrong here and it is a stupid thing to be blocked over. Asserting you're right and intending to continue in the same vein is a certain recipe for a block as a preventative measure. Those are not threats and any such block is likely to be indefinite until you come to your senses. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"This is nowhere near ready to close." For real??! No, after all, there's been barely enough dramaz here yet. Please. Spare us the madness. Someone close this pointless thread. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, won't someone please think of the boomerangs! Mercy. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 21:03, 26 March 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.

10199 Chariklo and embargoed press releases

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.

---

Several IP users keep removing sourced content from 10199 Chariklo, with no explanation. Their objection appears to be that it is the subject of an embargoed press release by the European Southern Observatory (ESO). Several experienced editors have pointed out on the talk page that Wikipedia is not bound by embargoes. The IP users appear to have conflicts of interest, as they trace to ESO and Paris Observatory, which was apparently involved in the discovery. I'm at my three revert limit and it is usually a low-traffic page. Could we get some eyes over there, and possibly semi-protection?

There's further discussion on the article talk page and at Wikipedia:Help_desk#What_is_Wikipedia.27s_policy_in_regard_to_news_embargos.3F. Modest Genius ^talk 15:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Streisand effect in action. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course one could quite reasonably ask why wikipedia is scooping major news outlets, given that we're supposed to be a tertiary source, not a primary or secondary source.... and why in the rush to be first we're citing articles that were pulled from their original source and a blog. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

We are not "scooping" , we are reporting what a reliable news source verifiably published. That they may have had second thoughts about the timing is really irrelevant. It was verifiable content and a factually reliable source. The only reason to not include it would be to facilitate a press conference buzz by a third party; which is clearly not one of Wikipedia's content principals. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Deletion of (half of) citizenship from lede

Our guideline on ledes in bios, WP:OPENPARA, states: "The opening paragraph should have: ... In most modern-day cases ... the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident..." (emphasis added)

RidiQLus repeatedly deleted the citizenship of a dual citizen (German/Iranian) person from a blp lede. The dual citizenship statement is backed by a ref to Spiegel Online, a very high-level RS.

For example, RidiQLus deleted the "German" aspect of it here (writing: "he is 100% Iranian by blood. Also, your edits make you come off as anti-Iranian.") He offered no evidence to support his statement, or to bring into question the Spiegel Online ref.

See also here. In that revert, RidiQLus again only wanted to continue to reflect that the person was Iranian. While deleting the reference to him also being a German citizen.

I opened up article talk page discussion here, and we moved it to the MOS page here. More of the deleter's thinking is reflected in this message he left on my talk page.

Based on the guideline WP:OPENPARA, as well as the ensuing talk page discussions, I reflected the subject's dual citizenship in the lede. Editors Jaellee and JMHamo then refined the addition.

RidiQLus has just now, yet again, deleted the reference, and then deleted the RS ref that directly supported it. This despite ample talk page discussion, and the input of others.Epeefleche (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and both Epeefleche and RidiQLus have been reverting each other about this for a while now. It's not something that should be discussed here. JMHamo (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It is an incident that requires the intervention of administrators and experienced editors, which is what this page is for. It is ongoing, has involved multiple editors, and I've exhausted talk page discussion, and talk page input of other editors has been given but not heeded, and it involves application of a wiki guideline which is being flouted without any credible explanation.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• I just reverted and warned, an only warning for removing content. But then I saw that good old Kelapstick had blocked earlier for edit warring, which they have been doing for a long time on this article. The same problems occur elsewhere, and they seem to have problems with proper sourcing in the first place. So I'm going to block for a bit longer than K-stick blocked the first time around. Just cause it's football doesn't mean it shouldn't be done right. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Petergriffin9901 making personal attacks even after being asked not to do so

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 issue started with me removing a source from the article Mariah Carey here which was my mistake as I believed it did not support the content sourced. I must have overlooked the article body. All good, until Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs) came and reverted with a foul edit summary and called me obnoxious. I warned the user for NPA, which he reverted back as nonsense, and then posting on my talk page Well. I see I'm going to actually have the displeasure of conversing with you. Oh goodie! Do me a favor, keep your fancruft and other obnoxious messages to yourself.... You guys can continue reading the rest of it, where I was accused of fancruft, being obnoxious again, and was called out for trying to validate a source in WP:RSN here. I asked Petergriffin to talk in a civilized manner not twice but thrice, however the replies I got back were as follows: I am expressing my opinion and describing your actions as I see them: obnoxious and then Your posts are rubbish mate. I don't need you to post obnoxious rudimentary templates on my talk page. The last one I believe was because of WP:DTR I presume? If so, in the meantime I found out that an edit war brewed over at Mariah Carey with Petergriffin9901 having edit warrned thrice [160], [161], [162]) over an issue with Adabow (talk · contribs) (he had 2 reverts) for which I warned him and got reverted with the message There's no such edit war. Read others' talk age. Be on your way now. Petergriffin's block log shows multiple violations of 3RR and continues to do so it seems. My question is this kind of behavior allowed in Wikipedia? Just because one is a senior editor one can get away with calling others names and talk in an uncivilized manner? In none of the messages I saw Petergriffin assume good faith at my talk page or anywhere on the issue. User Adabow suggests for dropping this but I honestly can't seeing that after repeatedly asking Petergriffin9901 to interract in a civilized manner the user failed to do so. I'm raising this thread to bring this users actions in the front of administrators. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I see chronic incivility on Petergriffin's part, but no real violations of WP:NPA. And yeah, you made a mistake, it would have softened the whole situation if you had apologized and left the templates out of it DP 10:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

IndianBio, you must be extremely sensitive to what you call "foul language" (="read the damn source"..!) Now, after you've been reverted, you admit you made a mistake and must have overlooked what was in the source, but how was Peter Griffin to know that at the time he reverted? Some frustration in his edit summary was natural enough IMO. There was no "foul" language and no personal attack, and posting an NPA template on him for such a thing was plain silly. Clicking on your further links above makes your narrative of how polite you were ("I asked PG to talk in a civilized manner") seem almost amusingly self-serving. You shouldn't bait people and then report them on ANI when they react. Full disclosure: I'm commenting on this matter particularly because I recently had to take you up on an instance of newbie-biting, see the section immediately above your quarrel with Peter Griffin on your page; you seemed very sure there, too, that you were the wronged party. Please consider changing your interaction style. Bishonen | talk 10:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC).

DP, apologize for what? I did make a mistake about the source and so did another user. That does not warrant PG calling me "obnoxious" and so on. And Bishonen if you support interraction like that from a senior I'm sorry I cannot support your views. And now you are dragging another issue altogether. Let me put it this way. Another user, senior at nest coming to your talk page and asking you "go away you obnoxious person" and you let it go with all sunshine daisies? I don't think so. And please, frustrated editing =/= incivility. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:16, 27 March 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.

BLP issue at Anwar Ibrahim

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.

---

• Anwar Ibrahim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jelqr4XTRAcms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 124.169.135.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) et al.
• Category deletion discussion

For the past week or so a number of similar IPs have been attempting to make this edit to Anwar Ibrahim which I have been reverting as a significant and clear BLP issue. Following a request at WP:RFPP by me, User:AlexiusHoratius semi-protected the page in question.

In the last day, User:Jelqr4XTRAcms, made 10 dummy edits to become autoconfirmed and continued to reinstate the same edit. I have continued to revert the edit.

I have refrained from using my administrative tools in this matter to avoid any accusations of unacceptable involvement. The matter is slightly tricky as it is to a small degree a content issue; the category is literally correct but the connotations of the category and its application to the case of this article subject make it thoroughly inappropriate.

I am requesting a review of the matter, a block of the new editor and an uninvolved administrator to keep a watch on the page. CIreland (talk) 15:04, 27 March 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.

Politician continues to remove negative information from personal site following warning for soapboxing

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 politician reported in this entry has made an additional edit to his own page after receiving a warning for these acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfpublishing (talk • contribs) 08:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The editor has stated, "I am not Deputy Flanagan but I work in his office", so they have admitted their conflict of interest. I will have a talk with them on their user talk page. -- Atama頭 21:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, @Selfpublishing:, can you clarify your role here? I see you have no edits outside of this article, you've shown up a little over a week after User:Lukeming, and you've seems to know quite a lot about Wikipedia...--v/r - TP 22:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this edit could be linked to as the definition of "irony" if you think about it (consider this is this editor's first ever edit, at least under this account). :) -- Atama頭 23:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The two users are technically  Confirmed. NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what shenanigans this person is up to (maybe an effort to establish a good hand/bad hand situation?) but both accounts have been dormant the last couple of days. I'm not sure if it's best to block one, or block both. Technically they both deserve a block, this kind of game-playing is explicitly not allowed. Lukeming would technically be the master here, as that account was created 11 days earlier than Selfpublishing. I'm just wondering if there is more going on here though. -- Atama頭 15:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked them both, becasue, as noted, these shenanigans are not what Wikipedia is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 28 March 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.

how to explain an editor that removing other's comments from talk pages is not allowed?

I have observed one editor consistently doing it even after several notes about relevant WP policies. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you complaining about the removal of talk page comments written by sockpuppets ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I am complaining about removal of talk page comments. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a case against someone with evidence? Or just asking an ambiguous question for effect? Carrite (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

See contribs of Bobrayner - [163] He appears to be reverting a sock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The 'sock' he is reverting seems to come from two different countries! I checked whois for few IPs and found from both Serbia and Croatia.. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, the sockmaster has learned to use proxies to change their ip/location. What is your connection? You appear from nowhere and appear very concerned about this. Please disclose any previous accounts or IPs you have edited with. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sockmaster? Congratulations to you, please assume good faith. Not all IPs are the same person. Topic is very hot these days... I am concerned because I've seen similar behaviors in the past, but this guy is on the extreme side... 77.46.172.143 (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

p.s. for foreigners, it was 15 years yesterday from NATO bombing... we do remember here, and talk about it.. no wander there are a few IPs on the topic these days... 77.46.172.143 (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Please answer my question about previous accounts/IPs you have used. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

WTF is your problem? Learn about Dynamic_Host_Configuration_Protocol. I don't keep log of IPs. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

My problem is that random ips appearing from nowhere to complain about a someone socking being reverted QUACKS. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Imagine, just imagine for a moment, brief moment, that you are wrong. Imagine that if you can. All I can say is you would be a terrible laywer. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

User talkpage reminder about the policy/guideline, followed by a specifically targetted complaint on an appropriate admin board if it continues. Given you've already known about that first part, there's nothing to do here (or anywhere) without a specific report. DMacks (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What is appropriate admin board for that? This one or some other? 77.46.172.143 (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

For a violation of WP:TPO this board would be appropriate for getting assistance from an administrator. Note that removing any and all contributions from a sockpuppet is not a violation. -- Atama頭 17:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I have had recently such an experience with this user. He simply reverted my edit by writing "rv sock" in the edit summary and continued to assume bad faith later. I got curious, so I looked his contributions and noticed that he did it before with other IP edits, though I can't tell whether those IPs are someone's socks, but there seems to be no way for me to make him consider the possibility that IPs who disagree with him aren't socks. Perhaps he has experienced a lot of problems with real IP socks before and he just continues use that assumption. I don't know.

But, this appears very rude to somebody who comes to edit and immediately gets accused of being a sock. I occasionally edit (very rarely), but that kind of behavior could discourage potential newcomers from further editing.

Somebody mentioned that "random IPs appearing from nowhere to complain about a someone socking being reverted" seem to be a good indicator that those IPs are indeed socks. Well, it might look that way on the first glance, but if you consider the situation in which there are people who don't have permanent IP address (and don't keep log of previous ones, as IP before me mentioned) and who legitimately complain about that problem, you come to conclusion that end result appears indistinguishable, therefore such reasoning is insufficient to conclude whether they are socks.

I hope that people who read this are reasonable and don't jump to conclusions.

Also, I found this page while looking again at his contributions and there I've seen that he reverted an IP on his talkpage with "bored of socks" in the edit summary (he obviously keeps assuming that all the IPs are socks) and then looked contributions of this IP and then found this page. Just saying this to spare anybody of asking how I got here. --94.253.177.168 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

(Also, my previous IP address was 94.253.158.12, I've just noticed that it has changed, but I know what was I editing, so I've digged it from there, just in case someone needs it.) --94.253.177.168 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read this for context. Bobrayner put it very well when he stated, "This is our Balkan problem writ large; it's hard to tell the difference between real accounts, sockpuppets, sockpuppets which report/revert other sockpuppets, sockpuppets of the same person which report/revert each other, seemingly legitimate accounts who appear in discussions after being canvassed offsite, and so on." This is not one editor's problem, this is a problem with the entire topic area. IP sockpuppets have been relentless, to the extent where any IP who edits in a manner similar to other IPs who have been blocked as sockpuppets are assumed to be more sockpuppets. To an innocent editor who enters that topic area and faces that environment it's a bit unfair, but you have a choice and can register an account. The people dealing with this deluge of IP-hopping troublemakers don't have a choice, except maybe to do a blanket semi-protection of numerous articles, which really wouldn't be any better, would it? Basically, it sucks for all around, but at least you have a way out of the dilemma.

Think of it this way... To all appearances, you came "out of nowhere" and posted here on this page with your IP. Your only other listed contribution was one edit in 2012 (which may not have even been you). You've posted another IP address and stated that this used to be you, and we can assume that was you as well. If you had registered an account none of that would be necessary. Yes, I know that Wikipedia does not require that people register accounts to edit, but if you choose not to do that, you are choosing to edit with restrictions that registered accounts don't have. This is one of the problems you are going to run into. -- Atama頭 17:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I for example choose to edit as IP, not with account. I don't mind restrictions by WP, for example, semi-protection of the article. I go to relevant talk pages and share my ideas for improvements. Problem arises when some users start using 'sock' excuse to remove any valid commentary by IPs they disagree with, as can be seen in specific user's contribution history. Restrictions for IPs are one thing, abuse by another editor is something completely different. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes there really is sock puppetry. Your concern or dissatisfaction should be addressed to the people who abuse IP editing and spoil it for everyone else. Meanwhile, you can solve the problem by creating an account. IP editing is allowed as a way to bring in new editors. It probably isn't a good long term strategy for the contributor who becomes knowledgeable about Wikipedia and wants to be more deeply involved. Jehochman ^Talk 18:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I see, it's a big mess of a problem, so I might opt to create an account, although I edit very rarely. But how come that the same user got accused by IPs for false accusations of IP sockpuppeting? If only the numerous IP sock incidents are the cause, wouldn't there be many other editors with similar behaviour that IPs would complain about? Why only this user? --94.253.177.168 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Screw this, I (previously 94.253.158.12 and 94.253.177.168) decided to create an account to avoid this mess in the future. I would advice 77.46.172.143 to do the same. (But this question still bothers me.) --Feon (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that this user is the only person the IPs complain about. I'm pretty sure that this isn't, because administrators are blocking IPs as sockpuppets as well. I guarantee that the IPs aren't happy with them. This particular thread is against Bobrayner, and I linked to an old thread that was also about Bobrayner, but that means there aren't any about other editors.

I looked in the archives for this noticeboard, and most of the recent complaints from IPs in this area (I specifically just looked up "Kosovo" to narrow the search) are about Bobrayner. However, before then, most of the complaints were from Evlekis, who is now blocked for sockpuppetry, and often feuded with Bobrayner. There are also other threads, older ones, showing other editors (using named accounts) coordinating together off of Wikipedia (going back 8 years now?) conflicting with other editors. So I think that the problem with IPs has been pretty recent, and the person(s) coordinating the IPs have it out for him. I'm not saying that all IPs that Bobrayner has clashed with are socks (and I assume you yourself are not one) but many of them obviously were.

I'm sorry that you had to create an account to get around this mess. I think it's for the best though. Right now these articles are subject to WP:ARBMAC, maybe someone needs to ask the arbitration committee if some remedy is warranted specifically for the disruption for IPs. Or maybe they'll think that Bobrayner has been too harsh in this matter? I don't know. -- Atama頭 19:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I would point out that the offsite coordination problem has gone underground - it used to be quite open. The change in how the conspiracy is discussed offsite coincides with the sudden influx of anonymous editors into certain controversial articles here on en.wiki. Several have been blocked by various admins (to whom I am very grateful), but it's difficult for me to keep track of which IP is which. Since Atama mentioned Evlekis, I believe he has an active sock too, but that's an account (not an IP) and is active on different pages - I don't see a connection to this drama. bobrayner (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, first two links are "you have mail" notifications, third one is more problematic because it explicitly mentions en wiki and seems to be a call for other sr wiki users to participate in a discussion related to discussion about Kosovo, which borders assembling an army of meatpuppets. Finally, fourth link seems to me the most problematic one because there they seem to be accusing you of trolling and sockpuppeting. They also seem to mention that they are waiting results of some checkuser investigation against you.

In the light of this, I have better understanding why are you acting like that against IPs originating from the Balkan countries, but I would still advise you to be careful not to jump to conclusions, because you could deter potentially valuable innocent anonymous users from further editing. --Feon (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement yet again

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

---

Apparently undeterred by the recent inconclusive ANI thread on his behaviour, [164] User:Flowersforparis, a WP:SPA with a history of promotional editing at The Zeitgeist Movement and related articles (and a two-week block for sockpuppetry [165]), has chosen to make yet more gross personal attacks - "fuck you", "Go masturbate somewhere else" [166] Is it too much to ask that this is actually dealt with this time? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The last time he called you a 'moron' but I guess the people here thought that was not actionable enough. Maybe saying 'fuck you' on that talk page will do the trick. Otherwise I guess he will just keep hanging around and annoying people without actually contributing anything. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Y -- Indefinitely blocked -- There's enough long term evidence that the editor has engaged in sock puppetry, abusive talk and uncooperative behavior. Admins should support productive editors who've been patient and handled things calmly and cooly, and have exhausted all other reasonable means. The editor is open to make a case for reinstatement, and if other admins consider those arguments satisfactory, they may unblock this individual. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:57, 26 March 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.

50.240.235.141

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.

---

Disruptive IP continues to submit redlinking categories and introduce other unsourced content. Here are some examples of the user adding redlinked categories: [167][168][169][170][171][172]. The user was advised to stop doing this, then came back to add the same redlinked categories: [173][174][175]. I believe the user behind this IP was also behind 50.8.37.64, another Houston, Texas-based IP that generated disruptive content and went on a redlink campaign in late 2013. User doesn't respond to warnings or notes. Both users have an intersection at Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi (among other places I'm sure) and both have contributed redlinked Hi Hi Puffy Ami Yumi categories: [176] and [177]. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked 31 hours for refusing to discuss changes, a core requirement of Wikipedia.  —SMALLJIM  16:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Smalljim! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:51, 26 March 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.

George1935 on Talk:Homeopathy

George1935 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

George is a new SPA on Homeopathy. He's been posting for the last month with a number of problems. Demonstrating IDHT and tendentious editing is sometimes hard with diffs. I'll provide just a few examples, but reading Talk:Homeopathy is instructive.

Accusations of abuse instead of participating in discussion

George often responds to simple requests and pointers to policy with accusations of name calling, abuse and bullying, instead of participating in the discussion:

• "Are you part of the abuse team" after being pointed to WP:3RR
• Accuses an admin of lying and playing "bureaucratic tricks", also this
• accuses editor of being a hypocrite and calling him names when he is simply pointed to WP:AGF
• "is that kind of abusive?" in response to a simple question
• "this is the kind of bullying I mean here", response to being asked ""What wording might you suggest?"
• "Is this the cue to start the bullying?"
• George responds to being asked for a concrete proposal
• "bullying is acceptable...why should I stop?"

Repeating the same proposals

When he is participating, George often repeats the same proposals, even after consensus is reached, without responding to concerns. The talk page is rife with examples. Here is just one, where George proposed the addition of a POV check tag repeatedly over 2 weeks, transcluding it on the talk page 3 times. He edit warred on the article to include it, and responded to explanations and responses on the talk page in the same vein as above: no substantive replies, but plenty of accusations of abuse.

• March 15
• March 23 Same proposal, new section
• March 24 Same proposal, new section. He adds "I did not see any explanation why it should not (be added)"
• this section, regarding the tag, sums it up.

Edit warring

[178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183]

Resolution

A number of editors have attempted to help George and resolve these issues. George posted this to his userpage, which spurred this discussion from Brangifer, Brunton, Roxy the dog and me. Note that my advice to him was met with accusations that I am bullying and abusive along with a string of other claims that bear no resemblance to reality, such as claiming I said things I did not. I indicated then and on the 24th that I would bring this to ANI if he wasn't able to collaborate, and unfortunately, I've seen no improvement. This issue also appeared at ANEW, and Bbb23 summarized the issue at the time.

I believe George is unable or unwilling to participate meaningfully on the topic of Homeopathy. His interest appears to be reporting that Homeopathy is effective (such as this edit), which is not consistent with our sources. The problem is that he can't participate in discussion about the topic (for instance, by making concrete proposals or listening to concerns). A number of editors have suggested that he take a break from Homeopathy and work on other areas of WP until he learns the ropes. I believe that is good advice, but he hasn't taken it. I'd like to suggest a topic ban from Homeopathy, and to encourage George to seek mentorship if he has problems in other areas.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I will not participate in this absurd thing for the following reasons.

1.My talk page and my edits are evidence to any good faith good intended person that I edited in line with wikipedia principles - for the curious, intelligent and intellectually honest editors.

2. I think this is ridiculous process where people have already decided to ban me - this is the usual practice with people who disagree with the article - take a look in the talk page and you will see what I m talking about.

and most important -

3. if no admin found no fault the way I was treated ( the evidence is here ) then something must be wrong with this forum and I cannot trust the intentions and the good faith of the "judges"

Quoting -Brian Josephson "The lunatics are in charge of the asylum".--George1935 (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No they aren't, and that's pretty much your problem. I refer you to Jimbo's cogent comments:

Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of “true scientific discourse”. It isn’t.

— Jimmy Wales

There you have it. Try Wiki4CAM, where dissenting voices are banned - their elite team of nearly four editors have created over two hundred articles and there were almost five edits in February alone. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban (George1935 at homeopathy)

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.

---

• Support Jess' proposal that George1935 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The input of believers is important to balance in an article, even on quackery, but this rapidly becomes a net deficit when combined with edit warring, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and circular argument, which is what we see here. I see no evidence that George is ever likely to bring anything new to the perennial discussion of the validity of the subject, which is in any case a sideshow as our article accurately describes, as it should, the current status of the field, per the best scientific evidence. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support In the three weeks since this account was created, George has made 205 edits at Talk:Homeopathy but rarely refers to an actionable proposal. It is unreasonable to expect other editors to explain the principles of WP:FRINGE everyday. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support I am largely uninvolved in this topic, I have the page watchlisted and have noticed George's counterproductive involvement at the Talk page. As the article is under discretionary sanctions I was actually going to look into applying some sanctions, but this can be done here too. George's comments at the article Talk page are mostly about the behavior of editors and general wailing and moaning about the terrible state of Wikipedia and its awful insistence on authoritative, well-accepted, reliable secondary sources. Zad68 01:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support a larger topic ban on all alternative medicine topics. He lacks competency to such a severe degree that he should stay away from controversial topics. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Definitely a larger area. He's just issued a challenge, e.g. a declaration of war. This guy is not interested in collaboration, but in proving he's right, regardless of how many tell him he's wrong. That's classic battlefield behavior. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking, oscillo falls under homeopathy. I don't think we need to worry about scope: ban him from homeopathy and I confidently predict he'll either violate the ban or evade it with puppets, and he'll be banninated. Note: "cynic" is merely an optimist's name for a realist. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. This user obviously understands how to edit, it's just that their ability to edit competently is taken away by their strong POV in this area. They are welcome to edit in other areas of this encyclopedia. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support a larger topic ban per Brangifer, in all medical, fringe and pseudoscience areas - this still leaves plenty of scope for George to gain experience in how things get done here, should he wish to learn. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support a larger topic ban. I suggested a TB on Homeopathy because George hasn't edited any other article. However, the problems he's experiencing will follow him to other alt med topics, and we'll be right back here in a month. A TB on alt med would be best to encourage him to edit a fundamentally different kind of article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban on the subject of homeopathy, not just the article. I don't see evidence of problems outside that field, possibly because I haven't looked. I can see Mann jess's point, though. I'm neutral on that proposal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support a WP:FRINGE topic ban More disruptive SPAs are the last thing the project needs. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support WP:FRINGE topic ban - No need to keep other fringe areas open for this editor to move to. BMK (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban with regard to Homeopathy, broadly construed. I'm not yet ready to predict whether similar concerns would manifest at other unrelated articles but the topic ban can always be expanded if they do. For now, lets topic-ban from the topic where the problems are occurring. Stalwart111 21:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic banning on homeopathic articles. I don't like the idea of silencing someone whom I disagree with, but the amount of wasted time and effort (150,000 bytes of discussion since March 5th) that editors have spent disputing his misinterpretations of WEIGHT over the 20 or so days George has been frequenting the talk page has, quite frankly, become obscene. Cannolis (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Xe is quick to take the offensive rather than seek consensus. It's possible this editor may not have the disposition to work collaboratively on controversial topics. I recommend some time working on less contentious areas of the project. Jojalozzo 23:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support just Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I still cling to the faint hope that George could contribute productively to articles if he could just lose the chip on his shoulder. --Daffydavid (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

- we could do with a close and ban now, he's started WP:CANVASSing. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 29 March 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-range block request: 94.180.X.X

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 reported his activities to admin Dougwller. Please see 94.180.X.X (names of some targeted articles and I discussed his behavior). That IP user 94.180.X.X targeted many articles and admins should watch him. --Zyma (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence (diffs) of the editor's problematic behavior and what the issues are. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I was going to do ask if there would be too much collateral damage to do this. The edits from this range are clear violations of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 - no question about that. The only alternative to a range block is semi-protection of a number of articles, eg Kara Koyunlu, Caspian race, Chovgan, Armenians, Armenoid race, Khurshidbanu Natavan, Tat people (Iran), Tat people (Caucasus), Qashqai people, Mazanderani people, [[Gilaki people] and more. So we have [184], [185], [186] and more. This could be Az-507 (talk · contribs). In any case the sanctions are being violated wholesale so something needs to be done. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

There's not a massive amount from that range apart from the problematic editor. There does appear to be one prolific editor on music-related articles but they haven't edited since November. On that basis I've blocked 94.180.0.0/17 for a month to see how it goes. Black Kite (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 27 March 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.

Assessing consensus closure

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.

---

Hmm - question for any admin who fancies themself good at assessing consensus...would anyone have closed Talk:Crowned_crane#Requested_move as consensus to move? I was taken aback by this. I urge people to comment on the closeure process at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_March - otherwise most commenting (including me) will be endorsing or recommending overturning based on their original votes. Hence experienced neutral eyes urged....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 27 March 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.

Europa Universalis vandalism and copyvio from Charles Esdaile - need range block

We have had problems in the past with editors promoting concepts and terms from Europa Universalis - creating categories, renaming articles, changes of government types within articles, etc. Several socks were blocked last September over this and copyvio issues- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turgeis/Archive. Yesterday I discovered some page moves relating to this and today I have found a number of IPs doing similar edits, all geo-locating to Rio de Janeiro. Two IPs in the same range were involved last year. Recently - that is from January until yesterday, other IPs have been making the same type of edits. Most recent ones are 187.15.70.13 (talk · contribs), 187.14.224.110 (talk · contribs) and 187.15.48.73 (talk · contribs). Others include 187.15.54.135 (talk · contribs), 187.15.53.42 (talk · contribs) 187.15.54.135 (talk · contribs), 187.15.38.249 (talk · contribs), 187.15.8.12 (talk · contribs), 187.14.230.20 (talk · contribs), 187.15.71.7 (talk · contribs), and 187.15.73.173 (talk · contribs). I'm still searching for recent additions of "Noble republic", Administrative republic, Republican Dictatorship, Revolutionary empire, Administrative monarchy, all of which can be found at the game's wiki[187] and were part of a now deleted template here which Admins can view.[188]. Part of the tactic is to add sourced text to force the phrase into an article, eg [189]. Note this is copyvio from [190]. Some edits have misrepresented sources, eg [191]. These are all throwaway IP addresses.

I spent some lovely hours (and ended up buying Charles Esdaile's Peninsular War, Kindle edition, when I found more copy from the same 187.15 and 187.14 ranges - the same problems we faced before with Turgeis (talk · contribs) and his socks. See my edits at Mutiny of Aranjuez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I've ended up giving these long term semi-protection, but that won't work with the Europa Universalis vandals.

There is also an account involved to a minor extent, Hóseás (talk · contribs) who has made a couple of undiscussed page moves similar to Europa Universalis page moves - no Esdaile copyvio in this case but a few other problems - it's been suggested on my talk page this editor may simply need mentoring. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Forgot that these IP ranges were also mentioned in another SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/-Ilhador-/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the ranges are too big for a range block and have too much collateral. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

So I gather. I'll need to see if I can do something with a filter as it will be almost impossible to catch all of this copyvio/trolling otherwise. Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats and shenanigans at European Centre for Information Policy and Security (ECIPS)

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.

---

European Centre for Information Policy and Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article's creator and only substantive adder of content, Pellisor (talk · contribs), blanked the page and requested speedy deletion per G7 [192]. A new editor Kevinbrenan (talk · contribs) has removed the notice twice and tried to remove my comments on the talk page re copyvio, primary sourcing, non-notability, and possible COI [193]. He then posted a rather lame legal threat there [194] and at one point on the article itself [195]. Interestingly for someone claiming to be from the subject's legal team, he announced that we will be "persecuted" if we delete the article. I left a "No Legal Threats" warning on his talk page which was immediately blanked [196]. So there we are... If the article can't be speedied, then it needs to to go to AfD in my view. Both editors notified of this discussion [197], [198] Voceditenore (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that Kevinbrenan has just attempted to remove this section. [199]. Voceditenore (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

THE ECIPS HAS COPIED THIS NOTICE AND RESERVE ALL RIGHT TO FILE LEGAL CLAIM AGAINST USERS FOR THE USE OF ECIPS NAME IN THIS POSTED WEB ABOVE.

KIND REGARDS LEGAL TEAM ECIPS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinbrenan (talk • contribs) 16:24, 27 March 2014‎

Aaaaaand... Blocked. That is a fantastic example of an unambiguous legal threat, this editor will remain blocked unless and until the threat is just as unambiguously retracted. -- Atama頭 16:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! So what about the article itself? Should the creator's G7 request be restored? Voceditenore (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I also deleted the page per G7 as originally requested. It was an obvious G7 situation, and the fact that one disruptive editor tried to circumvent the speedy deletion process does not in any way invalidate it. -- Atama頭 16:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again! I was rather dreading taking it to AfD and the inevitable shenanigans there. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:43, 27 March 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.

Bullying

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

---

Resolved

 – The Boomerang has spoken and the given rope was used in the usual way Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi my name is Matthew Berdyck. I am not a Wikipedia user. I have a friend, and staff member, who tried to submit an article, about me, from his workstation in my office. My staff member expressed that he feels that my article is being rejected for personal or political reasons. He also states that members of your staff are bullying him. At that point I made two personal comments on the Help Desk page. That is the extent of my participation, here.

Over the last two days, in response to James statements, your editors have repeatedly insulted me, accusing me of being a self promoter, that my work is "poorly sourced." I don't understand how I became a target. This IP address has also been flagged for "vandalism." I can genuinely state that I don't know what that means, at all. I was also informed that my article was not approved because editors claim that my short film Poison in the Grapes is poorly sourced. After providing sources to correct the statement the response was to insult my staff member and my work, again.

This is a publicly active film project. The statements from your Help Desk Editors can be used by opposition to my work. They can say, "Not even Wikipedia believes this guy." Things like this happen to me quite frequently. I believe that statement was placed on the talk page for the article for creation in an attempt to cause defamation and damage to my project. The statement has no merit whatsoever.

When I approached the help desk to clarify this they accused me of being James and then threatened to ban me for trying to resolve the "citation issue" for Poison in the Grapes. I don't understand why this is happening. You can clearly see evidence of insults and bullying, of me, all throughout the commentary even though I have had, really, no part of this. Can you ask your staff to please stop being aggressive with me?

I am left in a precarious situation now. Wikipedia has not publicly questioned the credibility of our research. That research is being placed in a national feature length film called Death Water narrated by Andrew Tiernan (300: Rise of an Empire, The Pianist). This means that Wikipedia has now established itself as direct opposition to my work exposing toxic waste dumps in residential neighborhoods. Since I am notable. These attacks are very damaging to my very reliable research, simply for personal reasons.

Can you please explain to me how to resolve or escalate these issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.170.139 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Hello Matthew. I think there may be a misunderstanding here, as I've explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Poison in the Grapes. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It sounds more like you are interested in promoting your agenda and not build an encyclopedia based on your comments. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

There are no personal or political machinations with regards to the deleted article about you. Wikipedia has its own definition of WP:BIO notability, and you (and your project) do not currently meet that criteria. You're just going to get the same responses here as you've gotten elsewhere. Informing a new user that their edits do not meet Wikipedia policies is certainly not bullying. You and User:Middleamericajames might want to read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BOOMERANG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You might get more traction over here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN In general they will tell you that as the subject of the article you are in a conflict of interest and your contributions will not likely come from a neutral point of view. They will also point out that as your employee the contributions of your staffer are also suspect as it is akin to paid editing. CoI and paid editing are taken seriously here and frowned upon. There are ways to work within these concerns but it will take some patience on your part to learn what the system demands. You are technically in violation of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia doesn't care about you as a person or your goals. They only care about policy and ensuring Wikipedia doesn't become a billboard for every self proclaimed savior of the planet. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

However, with users with COI, AFC is the right way to go. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Matthew. I don't see any warnings for vandalism on your talk page. I think what you may be referring to is the note at the very top, which says that reports of vandalism can go to the network administrator. That's just a standard note for the sort of ip address you're using; it doesn't indicate that anyone in your office has actually vandalized wikipedia. The best way to avoid those sorts of notices is to register an account; that way, you only get notices regarding edits that you, Matthew, have made. The rest sounds like a misunderstanding. We have a number of policies regarding content on wikipedia that are tough to grapple with right off the bat. Since I'm not very familiar with your specific work, I'll let other editors chime in to help you. I'm sure no one is trying to bully you, and this can all be sorted out!   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I am referring to the note associated with this IP address. I am not writing this page and nor do I even want it. My only concern is that Wikipedia has made public statement about the sourcing for Poison in the Grapes. I am now going to have to include these statements in the film Death Water stating that Wikipedia staff have brought the information into question. There is no misunderstanding here. All of this is on the record and is being documented for Death Water in order to protect our research. Death Water is being pitched to HBO very shortly, solicited. I need a statement for the film, from Wikipedia that Wikipedia staff do or do not debate the credibility of the Death Water/Poison in the Grapes research. Essentially, you are choosing to place yourself in a national feature length documentary. My question, very specifically is, "Is Wikipedia staff attempting to discredit the research in Poison in the Grapes, or is James just being bullied and harassed?" Please clarify this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.170.139 (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Well, first of all, Wikipedia doesn't have a "staff", or at least not in the way you mean it. Wikipedia is written entirely by volunteers; everyone who has replied to you so far (including me) are volunteers, not an organized staff. Thus, there is no notion of a central organization of staff that debates anything. Second, even if one assumes that Wikipedia is a single monolithic entity that can make a public statement (and it isn't), I haven't seen any place where it makes a public statement about the sourcing for Poison in the Grapes. Can you point to a place where this statement was made? The only comments I've seen so far were questioning the sourcing of the article draft itself; they were not questioning the sourcing of the movie, or making any kind of statement about it whatsoever. So, to answer your final question, there is no Wikipedia staff, nobody is attempting to discredit Poison in the Grapes, and (as far as I've seen), nobody is bullying or harassing James. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest a block for not being here to build an encyclopedia, threats of outside action and otherwise WP:IDHT behavior. BTW Wikipedia in the sense you mean isn't a staff we are volunteers and the community sets the guidelines we are enforcing not a paid staff, so unless you characterize everyone on this website as against you it strikes a little of paranoia and or an attempt to sensationalize your agenda. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

More than that, Matthew's last comment, although not technically a legal threat, serves the same purpose, which is to inhibit the normal editing and operations of Wikipedia through a threat of outside action - in this case, "if you don't stop I'm going to put you in my film". Matthew should understand that such an attempt at intimidation is likely to lead to sanctions, and, worse, will have no effect on the outcome of his complaint (which, in fact, is unfounded and based on Matthew's misunderstanding of Wikipedia's processess). BMK (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No one is here to build an encyclopedia. If you feel this is true please present a factual source in which me or any of my staff has decided, or publicly admitted, that wee are attempting to use Wikipedia for promotions. If you cannot do this your opinion is is both groundless and without merit. If you look on the under talk page for Middleamericajames you can see the the accusation that Poison in the Grapes is "poorly sourced." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.170.139 (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2014‎ (UTC)

So I'm curious if you aren't here to build an encyclopedia then our work here is done no? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(sigh) "poorly sourced" in the sense that the Wikipedia article about the film had few reliable sources to establish the notability of the film, nothing to do with the content of the film itself. You're free to draw whatever conclusions you like, but if you continue to be disruptive and refuse to listen to what numerous veteran editors have been telling you, you're going to end up being blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Matthew, articles here, especially films, as about the subject and aren't based on the subject itself. When editors comment about sourcing problems, it's extremely unlikely that they are talking about sources the film used. Instead, they are referring to sources about the film, independent from the film, that review or discuss the film specifically. Wikipedia has various policies about when we should have an article about a particular subject. It's called notability (just click on that link). In large part, it's based on reliable third party sources that help demonstrate a subject is, well, notable. Please, take a few minutes to read that article over, it may help you understand where some of the comments are coming from. Ravensfire (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Just as a quick comment to Ravensfire and Ohnoitsjamie and perhaps others, I think there's some confusion here arising from what the IP said. From what I can tell, few people have commented on sources about the film (may be only one I saw besides the people related to the IP). It's never been a big concern because the issue of an article of the film never came up. What was at AFC was an article on the person primarily behind the film (who I think the IP claims they are). So the sourcing issues have really been about coverage of the person, not about coverage of the film. The IP later complained in the help desk under a topic relating to the film, but I haven't seen any evidence an article was ever existed or proposed about the film and the complaint seemed seriously confused. Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - I think the IP's comments directed my focus there. I've been reading over the discussions on the AFC help desk and I think it's the same situation. There needs to be good independent third-source sources about this person and they just aren't there. Ravensfire (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

From what I can tell, no one here besides you and MiddleAmericanJames has ever really commented on the sourcing in film. I would go so far to say that few of us even give a damn about the film either way. Not only that but from what I can tell, few people have even commented on sourcing of an article surrounding the film because none appears to have been ever seriously proposed let alone written. All people have commented on is sourcing of an article of a person (you?) which was apparently very poor. This doesn't mean any of the information on that person was wrong, simply that the sourcing wasn't up to out standards. Whatever the quality of the film or the sourcing of the film or the fame of the person who made the film are all besides the point. Nil Einne (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the concern of the IP address being "tagged for vandalism", this edit [200] created the IP's talk page with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:216.189.170.139&diff=601547683&oldid=601535215.

• The template does include some scary words: "In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation."
• Dougweller tried to explain that no warning was meant by the template with this edit [201].
• Perhaps these templates are due for a re-work. I don't post them to IP talk pages anymore unless there is an issue with that IP.
• No comment on the other issues. I think the template got things off on the wrong foot. Perhaps someone could WP:IAR and remove the template for him and try to start anew?

JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No the template should stay, if they can't or won't understand that it is an automated template and the explanations provided they aren't WP:COMPETENT to be here, they've already stated they aren't here to build an encyclopedia they should be blocked and we can all move on. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza, this is the second time this week it has come up that the warning/blocking templates might warrant a review. How would this be done? An RfC? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I stated above that my user was here to build an encyclopedia. This users repeated statements that James had another intention, r that I am "paranoid" is a direct example of the bullying I am speaking of. I am asking you to warn this user to stop bullying me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.170.139 (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2014‎ (UTC)

• Who is bullying you? As a reminder you explicitly stated "No one is here to build an encyclopedia." Therein again you have been told no bullying was taking place and will not provide one diff of any abuse despite multiple requests here to do so. Hell in a Bucket

• I would suggest that there's little need to expend much energy on this complaint. I've looked at the potential reliable sources for an article on Berdyck and there are none that I can find. Berdyck's page on IMDB is full of non-Wiki-notable short films "released" through You Tube and like outlets. He, or one of his films, may one day be sufficiently notable for an article, but that day hasn't come, so I would say close this complaint as without merit, and if Berdyck or his representatives continue to squawk about it, block them for disruption. (We can explain our processes until we're all blue in the face, but the complainant has to meet us halfway and want to understand. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case here. Ironically, what one finds when researching Berdyck -- also known as Michael Kane -- are complaints about Berdyck bullying other people - I saw at least three complaints of that sort on various forums. None were from reliable sources, so none are usable in a potential article, but the irony is palpable, given this complaint.) BMK (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC) (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that a diff is needed particularly considering the IP seems to lack WP:COMPETENCE so the chance they can work out how to produce one is slim. Considering the IP has given an example from this thread that's easy to find and you yourself made so I guess you know of, people can evaluate whether or not it's problematic. Nil Einne (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• What I think the issue here is that User:Middleamericajames made a derogatory comment about a third party (someone in the real world) in one of their interminable and endlessly tendentious comments at the Articles for Creation Help Desk, and User:Demiurge1000 reverted it quite rightly per BLP [202]. Middleamericajames then proceeded to argue that his comment about the person wasn't unreliably sourced because it is sourced to the yet to be produced film and that Demiurge's warning to him about BLP violations was impugning the yet to be produced film. Sigh. I'm afraid the walls of text in multiple sections at the Help Desk produced long after the original draft was deleted have become extremely disruptive and bordering on trolling. Take a look at.Voceditenore (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah thanks for that. I saw the stuff on the talk page but didn't pay that much attention so didn't realise what happened there and didn't understand until now how the OP got from people suggesting the article to the person lacked sufficient sourcing to establish notability to people were challenging the sourcing of the film. Now at least it sort of makes sense even if it still seems silly (and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this fiasco and particularly the responses by the IP and James would have a far worse effect on the crediblity of the films than the original correct BLP redaction if anyone actually looksmin to it). BTW as a final point of clarification, there are two films. One Poison in the Grapes is an already produced and released (I think) short film. Another is an expanded feature film in production (or which they hope will do so?) which is supposed to be called Death Water. It sounds like the alleged discrediting is in Poison i.e. the already produced film although it may also end up in Death Water sothe concern relates to both films. Nil Einne (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering that you have repeatedly accused people of questioning the sourcing used in the film when I don't think anyone has done so anywhere on wikipedia and people have repeatedly tried to assure you was never done, the label may be fair. BTW, I didn't mention this before but regarding your claim we need an admission from you or from your staff that you are trying to use wikipedia for promotional purposes, of course we don't need an admission to have resonable suspicion or to suggest that it may be going on, just resonable evidence. I'm fairly sure your film doesn't require admission from the EPA or the others you accuse for all the wrong doing you accuse them of, so I don't understand why this is even in contention. Nil Einne (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the community is far more interested in gazing at it's own navel I'm putting the question. I request administrator intervention to block the IP address: 216.189.170.139 for a period of no less than 2 weeks for persistent disruption, Failure to Assume good faith, Failure to understand the purpose of wikipedia, attempts to use Wikipedia to advertise their personal projects, Conflict of Interest involved editing, WP:COMPETENCE based issues, and veiled Legal Threats. I further request that the RBI sanctions be enacted for the subjects of Poison in the Grapes and Matthew Berdyck on the grounds that any further fielding of complaints with respect to these subjects are no better than flushing volunteer hours down the toilet. Hasteur (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why didn't you quote the Google result that I am a CIA agent? That one is much more interesting. Ban us. We live on the road, and have a different IP every day. As I said, I have contacts with upper management at Wikipedia. I can escalate this matter if necessary. I was hoping I wasn't going to have to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.170.139 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Ok please do so and stop wasting our time. In the meantime can an admim salt the fields and userpapge desecration to follow 8). Lol, I've asked for admin action too, I just read that and I had the image of the salting of Palestrina(?) in Rome by a medieval Pope and had to share my private chuckle. Well thank you for the threat of continued threat of disrutpion. it should help on the path of showing you aren't here in good faith. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, all articles will be salted to prevent implied threat of block evasion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Really, Middleamericajames should be blocked as well, for tendentious editing at AfC. Otherwise we're just going to hear Berdyk's whining through him. BMK (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm way ahead of you. :) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I just saw that, well done. BMK (talk) 20:23, 27 March 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.

Persistent personal attacks, incivility, belligerence and hostility from user:Tabrisius

I'd like to bring the community's attention to the attitude of user:Tabrisius in a content dispute at Talk:Royal Moroccan Army.

The discussion is rendered almost impossible by persistent personal attacks, pattern of hostility, general incivility and confrontational/WP:BATTLEGROUND-like behaviour. Requests to keep the exchange civil and focus on content have been answered with comments such: "stop playing the victim", "who do you think you are", "you are a troll...stop trolling me", "you're a great liar" etc. Diffs can be provided at request.

Unfortunately the attacks are escalating, rendering any resolution through normal content disputes channels difficult. In the absence of community action/involvement/attention, the discussion can be little more than a one-way flood of insults.

I'm requesting that third parties, get involved in commenting about the users behaviour and reminding them of policies such as: WP:AGF, WP:Civil, WP:NPA and WP:Own. Tachfin (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Diffs should be provided without a request. That said, I looked at this section of the talk page. Some of Tachfin's edits are not optimal ("sloppy gibberish"), but they pale in comparison to Tabrisius's comments, particularly harping on how Tachfin is a liar and apparently having reported Tachfin to WP:AIV, generally the last refuge of the desperate. Hchc2009 is trying to mediate the content dispute, but it's not easy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I left an NPA warning on Tabrisius's talk page regarding their conduct. That doesn't preclude other action. I note that Tabrisius was blocked for edit warring on the article itself earlier this month.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring and personal attacks should be considered symptoms of the same problem (unable to respect other editors, compromise, and properly collaborate) and my recommendation for any eventual administrative action is to consider these to be repeat offenses, even though they'd merit different warning/block templates. -- Atama頭 00:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Water fluoridation

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.

---

Water fluoridation is a controversial, page. Senior Editors are not following Wiki Verifiability Policy - attempting to judge quality of research selectively. Censoring HSPH study issued with a press release by the institution.

Water Fluoridation Page problems including not following Wiki Verifiability Policy

Water Fluoridation is trending now, on I have seen at least half a dozen posts on facebook, this past few weeks by various people (in a local where there IS NO FLUORDATION for decades). It matters to people, one way or another. Some believe it is the state of science, others feel abused by government and industry. Serious topic. So lets get this right.

Upon inspection I found that the Harvard Public Health School study on the topic by Choi in conjunction with the China Medical University in Shenyang, was not once but previously removed as a new study being cited.

The editors attempt themselves to determine which studies they find acceptable and qualifying instead of simply following the verifiability policy as is the wiki standard.

Dr James / JMH649 is an advisor at Wiki on medical articles and seems to be overseeing this page. However, the policy of wiki is not that one person can discount other credible sources and determine them not worthy studies. No such analysis appears to have being done to old studies listed. In fact the opposite seems true. Old studies are being cited repeatedly, so many old references that the page has asked for no more new links. See for yourself, it is highly dramatic and attempting to what?.. convince us that everyone in the 50s to 2002 is right? We need to not skew all data toward the past and must include new studies. It seems this has been mishandled significantly.

The verifiability policy

The new study must be admitted base on Wikis Verifiability policy which is as follows:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true".

The Choi Harvard Study has been quoted by Harvard it its own press release supporting the research, Huffington Post, and Fox News to name a few. It is verifiable! It must be admitted as a reference on this topic of varying opinion... even if it is considered the minority, it can be shown as such. But realize it is decades newer so minimizing fewer new studies in favor of many old studies is not exactly cutting edge research, as people want to see. Its simply old science we are showing. Obviously studies based on longer time periods available have more data to utilize so it is highly imprudent to have delayed this so long.

Other roadblocks on new information reverted (ad nauseam).

1) Formerly 98 immediately removed the new Harvard study and leaves only old studies only referenced under the heading "Evidence". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=601392345&oldid=601390742

2) The article reads like a dated 1960s pitch. It makes claims to help children and " the poor ". I changed the wording to economically disadvantaged and was reverted with no explanation by a new editor. It's highly insulting to call people poor. Again the dated wording, and pitch to save "the poor", is just outdated and wrong for a featured article.

3) Piguy101 reverted my correction from "Although Fluoride can cause dental fluorosis".. to "Fluoride can cause dental fluorosis"... We are not negotiating or selling it .. that word is a minimizer and implies a POV.. agreed? .. please assist. Agressive Reversionn of a minor edit/ Although It is like using "only" a little brown on teeth.. etc.. why not just say it causes Fluorosis?

4) Oversimplifying Fluoride Compounds as one word in the first three paragraphs. I simply tried to reference the few and elaborate more clearly below the index table in a new paragraph.

By oversimplifying different elements, people may think it is the naturally occurring substance that is added to water. Not the case. Was trying to clarify earlier and show clearly the type that as referenced on a verifiable site (and did properly cite), that there area few fluoride compounds created and used. It is not the naturally occurring calcium fluoride. It is an acid compound man made from industry, used in the majority of water fluoridation. This is dumbing down wiki by not moving at least a reference in a clear way up into the summary. The other reference is not visually distinct and attractive to the eye. People need to see the types of fluoridation in bullet points that are utilized clearly. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=601445143&oldid=601444397

5) Stop pitching it, and show the index box on the screen The layout shows a long winded pitch and obscures the index off the whole first page of a screen.

The introductory paragraphs ramble, are too many and go on about the benefits too long.. instead of referencing them and expanding later. So much so it repeats itself in later paragraphs.

Why does that matter? it pushes down the index box, and keeps touting benefits, while oversimplifying "fluoride" and minimizing "although" on fluorosis. I have news for you, in NY we don't want brown teeth. So skip the "although" your teeth may turn color comment, its not how people may feel. Simply state the fluorosis without minimizing wording. It is also bscuring the index box, where a reader can click on the topics of interest. Its like the Ikea store principle. you cant get out of the store until you have seen what they want you to see.. it is like a maze in there round and round until you can spot what you came for or the door.

The top paragraph should be simple, expound in lower paragraphs. Please don't run the index off the page to complete what seems like a sales pitch. Let viewers see the varied topics before being reassured of safety and other comments. Only the summary needs show before the index. Indexes shouldn't be at second pages no matter how fervent the writer. I attempted to correct and was told this was a featured article. Ok.. well please properly lay out and put back the index to the top as is proper layout for featured article.

6) Not once but three times, I added Israel as a nation that no longer allows fluoride beginning August 2014. Multiple editors reverted that too instead of correcting a line, they discarded valid information. This is 2014 information tossed and showing only old info. Again hopelessly dating the article and key topic. Why?

7) I would like again to try to add the lawsuit by Yaacov Gurman petitioning the court of Israel that was dismissed. Dramatic, but he represents a large consumer group, and within a year the Nation changed Public Health Ministers and the policy. All quite exciting information that might let a reader see the activity on this topic is very fluid and very real. Hardly the picture of the decades past portrayed by and large. This is listed on a banned wiki site.. but it seems to be a legitimate pdf document of the lawsuit - this is a very interesting challenge by a consumer group in which the so I will not do a link. It is worth reading an on pdf translated and brief.. the court dismisses after fluoridation is ceased. Quite a controversy and battle between the consumers and old practices in government. Why not show a bit of the consumer changes being sought and won? Its what is actually transpiring.

8) Fox news Dr. has come out against fluoridation for various types of at risk persons. That too was reverted. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/08/22/does-fluoride-in-drinking-water-hurt-your-brain/ It can be easily listed under controversy.

In summary this is Wikipedia, a transparent organization that is interested in new credible information on topics such as this. Majority and minority alike.

Please clean up this page. I have tried and it seems the page is revered and heavily guarded ..and hopelessly stuck decades back.

WikiShares (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

In other words, your efforts to insert anti-fluoridation conspiracy theories into Wikipedia have been unsuccessful. Nice to know that some parts of our policies still serve to help prevent the kind of damage you have attempted to wreak on the articles.—Kww(talk) 05:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

TL,DNR - but it looks very much like a content dispute to me. Content disputes are not dealt with here, only behavioral problems. Are there behavoral problems? If so, please cite them using diffs and a succinct description, so that our hard-working volunteer admins can delve into what you believe the problem is. Be aware, though, that by bringing a behavioral problem here, your own behavior will also be looked into. Are your hands clean? BMK (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that you, General Turgedson?Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you mean General Jack D. Ripper. BMK (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for reading. First, Kww you are scary... Harvard Studies are not meant to "wreak havoc". Thanks for the drama Beyond My Ken, thanks for the good beginning information.. I gave links to the content but am not familiar yet with diffs. And yes my hands are meticulous.. its the water that may not be so clean that was the subject of this matter.

who is General Turgdson, I should have known not to open discussion at this hour. WikiShares (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are we entertaining this sock any longer? Has anyone actually looked at the contributions for WikiShares (talk · contribs)? Yep: pretty sketchy. What's up with returning from a hiatus since 2010 with bit of grammatically flawed and totally unreferenced original research ? Nothing good. This is not an editor who is here to build an encyclopedia. Doc talk 06:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikishares attempted to make major edits to a featured article, not only without discussing them on the Talk Page first, but after very similar changes had been discussed and explicitly rejected. The article he cites explicitly stated that the study's results could not be applied to low level fluoridation of drinking water. Not sure why we are even discussing this. Formerly 98 (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Our "precious bodily fluids". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear WikiShares....see WP:FRINGE. Do you also believe that vaccinations cause Autism? Wikipedia articles should be supported by real science ref's, and the use of those ref's should actually MATCH what was said DP 10:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Admin Reviewers (are you all a joke to this process? ) Friends, you mean well, but your elitist attitude about contributions and incendiary speculations (Dandgerous Panda) and insults are hardly an elevated discussion but just blatant hostility. Focus.. follow WIKIPEDIA's rules. You cannot simply discuss (as a possibly created majority) the addition of warranted content away! It meets the Verifiability Standard. The article is being suppressed willfully and wrongly.

Lastly last night BMK Be My Ken followed and reverted my contribution on a NY modeling agency, to which I have personal knowledge of the comment written. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoli_Agency&action=history This was more hostility as a result of my efforts to call into attention the censorship occurring on a page that is clearly more controversial than I have ever witnessed.. well perhaps the middle east etc.. but this is up there.

Water fluoridation like it or not has opinions, recent ones coming in that are being mishandled and hidden from use wrongly and perhaps with bias, despite being credible and verifiable. Any one of you who assists in suppressing any must become familiar with the verifiability rule. WikiShares (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiShares the verifiability standard says that all information added to an article must be verifiable. It does not say that all verifiable information must be included. What is included is an editorial decision based on discussion and then consensus. GB fan 12:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiShares says in his edit summary for the comment above: "Message from editors - HANDS OFF ON WATER FLUORIDATION?" No, WikiShares, the message(s) from the editors here are:

• All material on Wikipedia must be verifiable using citations from reliable sources. Material which is not supported may be removed at any time.
• Not all verifiable material must go into an article: see WP:WEIGHT.
• Sources cited must actually back up the claims made; if there is no support within a citation for the material added, the material is unsourced and can be removed at any time.
• Editorial decisions are made by WP:CONSENSUS, and edits made against an established consensus can be removed while they are discussed (if needed) to see if a new consensus is forthcoming
• Anything you just "know" is original research, and cannot be added to articles
• "Vandalism" is a specific term of art on Wikipedia, defined at WP:VANDALISM. Do not call other editor's contributions "vandalism" if they do not meet this criteria. Deliberately continuing to do so can be considered to be a personal attack
• Claims of "Wiki-stalking" or "harrassment" are serious charges, and if they are not supported by evidence can be considered to be a personal attack.
• Using an editor's contribution list to check for bad edits after another bad edit has been revealed is not "harrassment" or "Wiki--stalking", it's one of the reasons that the contribution list is public, and helps to improve the encyclopedia
• Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, and does not exist for the purpose of promoting any cause.
• Anti-fluouridation advocacy generally does not rely on real science, and is considered to be a WP:FRINGE topic.

BMK (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It certainly says that it is not up to the editor to determine if he agrees.... Why try to suppress the newest study what is the goal here to assure the public of old studies? Why suppress high profile research? What could be the point? I am not naïve, nor do I think you are PR employees of the industry.. but the conduct is hostile to revert all contributions and suppress the real picture which is.. MANY new credible entities are engaging in and making changes to opinion on this topic. You only serve to frustrate the reporting of those facts when removing content. Again why the heck did Ken read my contribution on a modeling agency and deliberately revert it?

That's abominable! WikiShares (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Lastly GB, yes I see the creation of a talk page, and consensus? of what.. a few highly motivated people to say the world is flat? It's not up to you to block new credible studies and repeatedly list antiquated ones because you want to.

It's violating the spirit of Wikipedia and new and well cited studies.. if you all are so driven to do this... perhaps you all should take a break.. Or work for the industry and get paid for this information skewing to readers. That's what this is .. and why I find it necessary to speak out. 12:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Another page for you to read, the one on "I didn't hear that" behavior. BMK (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, note that almost everything you've reported here is by way of a content dispute, however, admins do not settle content disputes, they deal with behavioral problems, and, so far, the only behavioral problem I can see here is yours. Given that, it's worthwhile to read WP:BOOMARANG. BMK (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• WikiShares, bottom line is this: you agreed to the policies of this private website the moment you first edited, and every time since. The biggest and most important right now is WP:CONSENSUS - which means no matter how fantastic you think your source is, if consensus says that it's NOT that great, then consensus does and always will rule. Period. The administrators on this board are not here to review the content of the reports, or even the veracity of your edits - that apparently has already been done on the article. If you continue to fail to adhere to the policies you agreed to for long enough, then any single one of the admins reading or participating in this thread have the ability, authority, and ethical requirement to protect the project from further disruption. DP 13:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Are you saying my contributions on an unrelated topic of a modeling agency were not shown to be reverted by you Ken? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoli_Agency&action=history This link shows a user with your name has reverted a contribution by me on an unrelated matter.. Are you to say it was not you Ken?

The heart of this.. is I contributed a recent study from Harvard on a topic that the editors have decided as a "consensus" should not be reference... Call it what you will.. the heart of this.. is....... The real watchdog on this topic is "Dr Jim" who has stayed silent as this all has become an attempt by a group, to redirect the topic and frustrate me as a sincere contributor. Nice try!

This is relevant and keeping it out does not make it appropriate. This is the process of developing a consensus on censorship and not letting the reader read differing studies because they are different points of view, and not found acceptable by a small group of watchful editors who are blocking it. That is it plain and simple. Revert all you like... This topic is real and being colored wildly by the "consensus"

Dangerous Panda, There is not a chance in h, I will edit that page right now... so claiming anything of the sort is quite outlandish. Are you trying to ignore that an editor on this page just followed me and reverted a modeling article edit?

This is NOT a content dispute.. it is the actions of wholesale revisions instead of small changes, and also the violation of Verifiability .. even if you do not as a consensus choose to reference it.. as factual, it must be included in the opposition, minority or other opinions! Wouldn't you agree? That is the crux of it.. why have a politics and ethics paragraph citing differing opinions.. and ban it from there also? because it says Harvard and might be believed? That's the core of this matter.

Lastly, and I am off to the real world.. I have this to say.. The world is round my friends the world is round. The study you decide against citing in a huge run on page is already getting old.. and Nations.. like Israel have just banned the practice. So is Israel a Fringe? are they anti vaccine etc? Lol The world is Round friends. Have a nice day. I will not be engaging in the forum. Ken good job of reverting other contributions and trying to accuse me of attacks for saying so. Nice job Panda... but I won't be giving you anything you can say is working against the consensus.

That may be a content reference but it is the conduct of ken following me and reverting, and of the wholesale reversions that are in question and would frustrate and deter any changes to a page that appears in my humble opinion to be guarding VERY dated studies for what purpose and defense I am not sure.

I am very disappointed in the extremes I have witnessed. WikiShares (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding my reversion of your addition to the Zoli Agency article, as I explained already on my talk page, I do not (and did not) deny reverting your edit, which was unsourced, I simply refused your request to restore it. Your claim that the edit was "vandalism" is not correct, as you should know by now, and that my action constitutes "Harrassment" and "Wiki-stalking" is also inaccurate. It remains the case that the only behavioral problem represented in this thread is your own WP:IDHT behavior in refusing to take on board basic Wikipedia policies and procedures. Unless you're are willing to do that, your prospective tenure as an editor here will be limited. BMK (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• You write in your edit summary "After my opening an Admin.. and Editor followed and undid work on another simple topic, - I showed the link, but was told it was possibly a personal attack!!!! is this real?" Yes, this is real, as I have already explained to you at least three times. There is nothing wrong with checking an editor's contributions for problems when his editing has been shown to be problematic. That is what I did, and as a result I reverted unsourced material. You called it harassment and stalking, which it is not. If you were to continue to call it harassment and stalking without providing evidence of actual misbehavior, then, yes, that would be a personal attack, and you could be blocked it. Will you be blocked for that? No, since I don't plan to press the issue and (at this point) it's a one-time thing. However, if you don't drop the subject, that could change. BMK (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"The world is round my friends the world is round" Actually, it's an oblate spheroid. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This users changes and comments make it appear like they have not actually read the article. They are trying to use a study that is not about water fluoridation to discuss water fluoridation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you claim that Israel has banned fluoride as that isn't true. "The court simply deferred to the authority of Israel’s health minister, who happens to oppose fluoridation. She declined to sign an order that would have continued fluoridation regulations. These regulations will end in August, and what happens after that is unclear." [203] No one knows if local authorities will be able to add fluroide or not. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. The sum total of the above commentary by WikiShares is an epic case of bad faith, not listening, soapboxing, personal attacks, and a apparent inability to grok basic Wikipedia policies even after they've been explained multiple times. And, looking over WikiShares' contribution history, before their rather lengthy Wikibreak (as mentioned, back in 2010) they were exhibiting the exact same behavior. What we have here is an editor who is either not here to improve the encyclopedia or who is indistinguishable from the same, and therefore I've indefinitely blocked them so as to avoid a further drain on the community's time. While indefinite is not infinite, I'd highly reccomend unblock requests only be considered if, and only if, they show a good-faith effort to abide by Wikipedia policies (most notably WP:CONSENSUS). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Good block. The signal-to-noise ratio with this editor was unsatisfactory. -- Atama頭 15:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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

harassment, impolite, or inappropriate communication from editor

A wikipedia editor, Mr. Guye has left a COI notice on my user talk page, causing it to be listed in category: user pages with conflict of interest. He also neglected to sign his post. I have no idea why he thinks I have a conflict of interest, or even with regard to what article. I'm currently actively editing about 5 mostly unrelated articles. I have no special involvement with any of them, and am not a member of any organizations at all (I'm retired). I've previously (a few days ago) manually undid a disruptive edit by this editor from an article I'm reorganizing, Genetic resistance to malaria. The disruptive edit was a WP:TAGBOMB consisting of 9 interrelated maintanance tags added to an article which already had two such (reasonable) tags. My undo had nothing to do with bias or POV. I believe this editor now has some kind of vendetta with regard to me. I notice that this editor has received an administrtive warning in the past for vandalism, and quite a spectacled edit history. What do I do in this situation? Can I request an administrator to remove the COI notice from my talk page, or can I remove it myself? I usually don't remove anything from a talk page, in order to have an accurate history for myself, but this is not appropriate to have been put there. Please advise.Sbalfour (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You can do anything you want on your own talk page, including removing warnings or tags you have read. You don't need any administrator to do that. --Jayron32 04:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. → Call me Hahc21 04:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Just remove the tag. I have doubts that Mr. Guye is here for the purpose of editing Wikipedia; he may just be here to cause problems. Some of his edits are appropriate, some would be appropriate except for obscure Wikipedia conventions, and IMHO, most are inappropriate under any reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

To remove any feeling of impropriety, I removed the section after checking that it does appear to be nonsense, as described by Arthur Rubin above. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Adult supervision needed at Talk:Energetically modified cement

I havent been following closely or participating in the discussion with the involved IPs for a while, but its on my watchlist and the situation appears to be spiraling out of appropriate scope. At least one of the IPs appears to have a COI. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've intervened, making my non-admin status clear, and tried to make both parties aware that their flagrant disregard for WP:Civility is inappropriate. The problem is that, despite the fact that one editor has more relevant arguments -- there is, as you noted, a COI issue with the other IP and a fairly strong promotional slant to his edits -- neither of them has the least clue about how to form a policy argument and the discussion has devolved into constant and voluminous mud-slinging and arguments without traction. Add to that the fact that neither seems inclined to apply indentation or other talk page style convention or organizational feature that might keep the discussion focused and on-track and you have a real mess. It's not exactly an article of high interest for me, but I'll try to stick around and oversee some adjustments to the page to improve its tone and verifiability a bit, though I'm dubious I'll be able to get the two of them to work constructively to improve the page between them. Snow (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let me preface my next remark by saying that, as a fully-certified admin, I am fully aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NONASTYWORDSPLEASE, but still: HOLY SHIT, that's the worst-looking talk page I've seen in a while. Can we burn it, via MfD or IAR? Drmies (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• I removed the last rant and left a note on Uncle Karl's talk page. Who is the "other" editor? The 213 IP? I find it very difficult to find specific civility infractions in those walls of words, though IP 71.33.155.41's shouting etc is uncivil enough--their very layout is offensive. Anyway, y'all's efforts are appreciated. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Short Precis by 213.66.81.80

I hope this helps:

• I really dont want to answer towards TRPoD because his antipathy toward the page goes back some months back and he represents a particularly estreme view of what the entire "promotional debate". Let's just say this is not the first time he has tried to strip the article. Nor is he immune from being warned regarding his aggressive edits to others' works. Just go to his talk page. I note he "watches the page", and stalks my talk page. For ex, I was tidying my talk page and he sent me a very "odd" message on my talk page a couple of evenings back (as if I was a naughty schoolboy "Your will be deemed to be wilfull" language.). And he posted this here, and raised the assertion that it is me with COI ---- at a time it was clear the ANGRY user was losing control.

• I have 35 years material science. I live in Stockholm. Swedish is my first language. On the page, I wrote the section (you'll maybe never heard of it), tribochemisry and the section dealing with pozzolanic concrete chemistry. So, there is at least a flavor of my knowledge base. I have no connection to EMC. As I understand from the AfDs, no one from LTU or Ronin wanted this page, because they have low opinion of Wikipedia.

• This said no one of real material science knowledge has ever questioned the page. Most of the comments have been novices who needed a greater explanation, which because of my love of the material sciences subject, I have willingly given.

• I hope this page is giving greater "exposure" to EMCs. Both in terms sf novice reader and expert readers. I also hope it is aiding to a much deeper resource on material sciences, which Wikipedia is very poor.

• The page already has a "B" rating. I wanted to improve it to a "GA" and even contacted an editor who I really trust called FeydHuxtable. See my talk page.

• This "incident" started about a week ago when a user called KARL attacked MY work stating I was, among others, lying, fake, and that I have no knowledge of the subject. As time went on he made a number of demonstrably bogus comments. When asked to state his sources, all he would do is respond with what you call "wall of Texts". I did not respond to them as they were TLDR.

• But, just as the Snows comments above show, if one throws a little mud, a little might stick. Throw lots, many times and it WILL stick. To the point now where Snow is proving the point by stating

"The problem is that, despite the fact that one editor has more relevant arguments -- there is, as you noted, a COI issue with the other IP and a fairly strong promotional slant to his edits"

• Snow: I will not be bullied by a poster posting TLDRs to be disruptive. Do you see how many times that user uses the word "ANGER" and "ANGRY"? LIAR, STUPID, FAKE (ALL in CAPS, so the casual visitor cannot help see it)?

• EVERY TIME I have chosen just one of the many wild assertions made, ANGRY user has then deflected (with more walls of texts / TLDRs). The very last post I made before Snow posted his comments, proved it. But now it has been collapsed. So let me show you how "bananas" it has been, AFTER an ENTIRE week of this ANGRY user SHOUTING AT ME. This is what I wrote:

Look, I do not know how much of your gobbledygook you actually read back to yourself. But it just goes on and on. You say:

"I believe that what is meant, is that since you can (supposedly) greatly increase the amount of Fly Ash in the concrete, which is a waste product of coal burning electric production, you do not have to use as much Portland cement, saving energy; as the Fly Ash's "energy" of production, is allocated to the production of electricity already, so the Fly Ash's energy of production is "free", when added to concrete."

"This, of course, is slight of hand. The actual energy invested in production of either product would presumably be about the same."

This is completely contradictory. How can it possibly be (sic) "sleight of hand"? Since when does one burn coal expressly to make a waste product? It is just utter gobbledygook. And yet I have then had to endure days upon day of this endless personal attacks by you because I CANNOT understand your logic. You have accused me of lying, or not being a scientist, and basically of being stupid. I ask you to post me one decent question - and all I get is TLDRs again.

This is the "classic" case of a Portland cement "spook" that peddles this nonsense and won't stop. This has gone on for nearly a week. And you won't stop. I said it before, I say it again: it is all too odd and persistent.

• Snow: you do realize that several days ago, he got an immediate LEVEL 4 warning for his personal attacks against me and yet still persisted? Nothing stops him. It is relentless.

• I refute any suggestion what I have written is "promotional". Indeed, please tell me where the section on EMC Activation and Pozzolanic concrete chemistry is promotional.

• There are only two possibilities: The ANGRY user, does not have any knowledge. But then why so persistent and why make such obviously odd points? Or the said ANGRY user does have knowledge and is playing "divisive" and being highly provocative and manipulative. Which, if so, all the more underscores it is Portland Cement industry "spook".

213.66.81.80 (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

i do not think that word "short" means what you think it means. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If that's a "short precis", I daren't even look at the abovementioned "holy shit" talkpage. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC).

You were smarter than the rest of us then. Imagine the scene at the end of Raiders of the Lost Arc when the Arc is opened.Snow (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The incivility at this article has been going on for a year. You can see the heated language at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energetically Modified Cement ("EMC Cement"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energetically modified cement (2nd nomination), and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Ronin. User:Jono13 was very confrontational, and so was IP 213 which is clearly the same person. Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

While I very much hate to throw in the towel so quickly on solving this dilemma amicably, new facts have come to light which rather tend to suggest that is a hopeless cause. Specifically, the editor currently operating from 213.66.81.80 is an established sockpuppet of the article's creator User:Jono2013, as per this SPI, with additional suspected socks. Both accounts have previous blocks resulting from this sockpuppetry, legal threats, and general uncivil behaviour.

Between the registered account and the IPs, he appears, for the better part of a year, to have remained consistently hostile towards all of the number of editors who have attempted to question the apparently promotional nature of the article and its dubious consistency with regard to WP:V, often leveling personal attacks against them and making accusations of conflict of interest, though he himself seems to have had at least tangential contact with the inventor of the product which is the subject of the article. Further, he refuses to keep discussion focused on the content and its consistency to policy, routinely targeting what he perceives to be deficiencies in the professional credentials of other editors and questioning their involvement in the article and talk processes, though he has been told repeatedly that such not relevant to content discussion.

It is my strong takeaway from my short involvement in the article and my review of the talk page and the article's time in AfD, that the editor in question lacks the basic neutrality on the subject, and requisite respect for his fellow editors, necessary to be involved in the article in a non-disruptive fashion. It is in fact my impression, and one I would dare to venture is shared by most of the other editors involved with the article, that any effort to rescue the article and move it towards a stable state consistent with policy cannot be affected while he is involved there and that a topic ban should be strongly considered by any admin who decides to investigate the matter further. The editor himself should try to recognize that his lack of perspective and the lack of trust the other involved editors have for him is becoming the main driver for renewed calls to delete the article outright, but I rather tend to doubt that he will remove himself from the process.

Edit: I should also note that the other IP involved in the most recent round of mud-slinging, 71.33.155.41, has not exactly been a peach himself, but that Jono2013/213.66.81.80's history of incivility and conflict with other editors very evidently pre-dates the involvement of that editor and in fact goes back to the inception of the article, which, along with the article for the product's creator and articles for competing products, constitute the entirety of his narrow efforts on Wikipedia. Snow (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Snow: I ask you to now please leave this debate. You have had more than your share of comment. The "latest round" of "mudslinging" (your words) implies by using the words "latest round" that I have "invited" or acted poorly against the enormous number of very hostile attacks made against me by ANGRY user. He is the one who was warned to level 4 - I was not. If you look at my edits to "Maproom" and "XFM Skier" last week, they were entirely helpful (I will post them here if you wish). I made it clear to ANGRY user that I would not respond to bullying by way of persistent TLDRS which accused me of being "FAKE", "LYING" "STUPID", on so many occasions half of it could be enough. You say "71.33.155.41, has not exactly been a peach himself" - that is way short of the mark of the attacks I have had to suffer and then get patronised on top. In the meantime, the text below might assist. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope the following assists

• Jono 2013 lived in England and from his posts was a retired biochemistry professor. I was SPI'd because I had collaborated with him very early on in writing the beginnings of the article, and had not disclosed this (I was in those days a complete novice to wikipedia) when I THEN I made the "mistake" of voting in the second Afd.

• Jono made the vast majority of the page. I was on business in Singapore anyhow. Then he disappeared. By all accounts, he collapsed due to the stress of the second Afd which had been brought on in a week. When I got back from Singapore, I culd not believe the nature of the Afd debate and so I made a comment.

• Go on my talk page and you will see FeydHuxtable asking me if I had seen Jono. I have not and I have not heard from him. I sent emails to his family and I got one back from a relative saying that apparently his wife had banned him from ever returning. From what I see, he has kept his promise to her first. He has never made any further edit on Wikipedia, which is a shame because he actually contributed to a biochemistry page which was his "core". Wikipedia lost a very committed and passionate editor. Jono made the mistake of being too passionate.

• One of the reasons I was banned included the fact that I was Swedish. Another Swedish user called "Swedish Gold" was banned also for being Swedish. Swedis Gold and I know one another in ex-professional circles and are acquaintances. He is placed in the Swedish Government. There is another Swedish user, who made an edit (and his IP resolves to the far north of Sweden). And he was banned for being Swedish from what I can see.

• I also add that the second Afd, a user who voted to 'delete was perpetrated by a bogus user masquerading as a professor at Berkeley University. The user "Swedish Gold" called him out on that. And rightly so. That was how "wild" the second Afd became.

• The demise of Jono2013 generated angry comments, all of which were deleted by those against whom the assertions were made. I understand the editor FiddleFaddle did email "swedish gold" last summer. "Swedish Gold" told me but I have not seen those emails. I believe Swedish Gold was very "upset" at the way that anyone Swedish was banned. I was also told that FiddleFaddle had even written an essay on wikipedia, "inspired" by the whole debacle. You have to check with him.

• I suppose because the technology is Swedish therefore (I am guessing) open to the innuendo of some sort of "national bias".

• After several months, I decided to add certain aspects to give greater detail as to its history and recognition (because in the Afd "notability" had been raised). I had hoped that maybe from time to time Jono2013 would see that I was picking up where he had left off.

• When it became obvious the article needed improving over and beyond Jono's original work - because he did not have the technical knowledge, there were aspects on the page which he never tackled in his days. Hence as I said, I have written the sections on Pozzolanic concrete chemistry and added to the section on EMC Activation, with reference to publicly available documents and my knowledge of this rather "specialist" area of Chemistry which ANGRY users refers to as (alternatively) FAKE (he uses the word in caps multiple times) and "Rubber Ducky".

• I added those section in direct response to a user request for a deeper understanding of why EMCs "do what they do". This is a "two dimensional" consideration because one has to look first at the cement compound produced and then why that produces "better" concretes (and the last past can be explained only by reference to concrete chemistry). I also add that "concrete chemistry" is also an entirely separate academic discipline to "cement chemistry", which confirms the "two dimensional" nature of the considerations. I wrote the section on pozzolanic concrete chemistry before Chritsmas. I was uncomfortable about the tribochemistry section that would be needed so I sought guidance before xmas and hoped someone would give me guidance on the extents of Original Research.

• So, before Christmas, having written the section regarding pozzolanic concrete chemistry, I posted several messages on Wikipedia asking for guidance regarding original research before I wrote the section on Tribochemistry.

• I waited 2.5 months hoping for an answers. No one responded. So I wrote it last week. And then, "all hell" happened. Because it is clear the scientific basis for EMCs are very real --- and so the only way to then disparage the page is to attack that aspect. You look at ANGRY userr's posts. It is all about "fake science". Coincidence?

• As for me, I live in Stockholm, Sweden. And I am not passionate about keeping this article. I am however passionate about people making grave accusations either that I am "stupid", or that I am "lying" or that what I write is "fake science" (all of which ANGRY editor repeated several times over). I think I have a right to be "passionate" about that.

• So if you want to Afd the article, do so. I may add initial comments in a third Afd, but beyond that, I am not going to make the mistake of Jono2013, by getting acutely anxious about losing my work. But if the article is lost, I will probably go to Arbcom and take it there. Not because the article is lost, but because I have been accused and the science has been accused and I do care about that - and from what I see that aspects is being "lost". I will also state, that I asked for guidance on Original Research nobody assisted me despite waiting 2.5 months, and that by contrast, the EMC page has been put under the spotlight endlessly and the air poisoned beyond rational debate by a user whose motivations are at the very least "questionable", whereas the Geopolymer_cement page, which by comparison is extremely "promotional" and written by Professor Davidovits (the main proponent of geopolymers) remains. When it has been made clear that no editor connected to EMC has contributed and that Ronin and LTU never supported the page. I believe I will have "earned" that right if my worik is delelted when I have been accused of promoting "FAKE" science (in CAPS) and of being a "LIAR" (in caps) over and over and over again by a user who has never backed such serious assertions-up in any meaningful substantive manner.

• You cannot "cheat" science. Wikipedia can delete the page, but it cannot "cheat" science. It is real. 4.5 million cubic yards cast by 2010 for TXDOT demonstrates this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Because all the concrete poured is within specification. Unlike Geopolymer_cement, which maybe if the regulations are changed, might in many years (say, 10 to 15 years earliest) start production in any meaningful volumes (and even then, that is if one can afford the hazard, environmental and financial costs brought about by it requirements of copious supplies of 14M NaOH for its synthesis, by comparison)

213.66.81.80 (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean one of the reasons you and others "was banned included the fact that .... was Swedish"? Are you saying that because if similarity in geolocation along with other factors, it was suspected that you (and others) were sock or meatpuppets or had an undeclared COI (relating to your place of employeement not your country) and edited inappropriately? Or are you say you and the others were discriminated against because you were Swedish? If you're saying the later, I suspect many like me will find this unbelievable particularly since you provided no diffs. It basically destroys any credibility as well as ensures I'm not going to bother reading anything else you said in this long statement. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

:: Hi: I mentioned it because I recall reading on a talk page somewhere words that were "And if you see anyone else Swedish who has an interest in cement let me know" in the context of banning contributors to any debate. You have to excuse me but I do not locate comments that were made on someone's user pages in May of last year. I don't know how. But I recall it clearly because Swedish Gold called me and was absolutely furious. Then I read it myself. I want to say this is why I do not have a user account - because my IP address is record and in Stockholm. Jono2013 is British and live in England. I do not believe that I have ever edited anything substantive during the Afd debate - I simply made an honest mistake (I was a novice) of not declaring that (when I added my comment on the Afd) I had helped start the article right at the beginning, which as I said, was when I came back from Singapore and could not believe my eyes (so I made my comment on the Afd). Swedish Gold knows a lot of people including academics in Berkeley who are very respected (who also know Ronin and "supportive" of his work with Prof. Elfgren). So he got incensed when a person on the Afd started masquerading as a professor from Berkeley. Swedish Gold exposed the fraud. It is all at the end of the second Afd. And then he got banned despite his "services" to such respects. And then I was banned even though I was in Stockholm. Meanwhile Jono2013 had already "collapsed" never to return... and FiddleFaddle got inspired for an essay about how experts on Wikipedia can be treated. So something "good" came of it - yes? Maybe you read it. But you need to ask FiddleFaddle where it is because I cannot remember its title. I hope this helps 213.66.81.80 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

213.66.81.80, I suggest you focus on content rather than on user conduct. you have made a decent start to the article, but perhaps you should just step back, take a deep breath, maybe even a short WP:wikibreak, and come back, ready to calmly collaborate with other editors, to fix the issues the page does have. good pages for you to read are probably WP:DGAF and WP:DR. if you feel that someone is making personal attacks, it is better to warn them, and if the persist, take it here, rather than responding in kind. we're all (or mostly) adults here, so let's act like it. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Tack for that! I have taken 2.5 month break after waiting for assistance. But got none. I think there is a deeper issue here, and if you see my response to Nil Eine above, there are deeper issues which FiddleFaddle exposed. The fact is I have added very high standard chemistry sections on the page, and I get accused of fake science, lying, being stupid (IN CAPS) about 30 times over (by a single purpose account) and suddenly the debate is not about that, but about banning me. Which is why I think that the only way to resolve the deeper issue (of the way experts are treated) is something like Arbcom, and hence sensitive editors like FiddleFaddle and FeydHuxtable could contribute constructively. Because this cannot keep happening. I am now the second substantive writer being "driven off" this wikipedia agape ---- when in reality my expertise is much deeper than Jono2013s ever was. And why? Well from my view it feels simply because I refused to be bullied into responding to multiple abusive TLDRs? The record is clear. And surely we must all agree no one should have to put up with a week of extreme bullying only then to be told "let's delete all your work anyhow and while we are at it ban you". The focus should be how the heck was a bully allowed to pollute the talk page to such a degree and not only get away with it (despite a level 4 warning), but to such a degree that others not only believe that "editor's" BS, but also cause a change in the debate - so the focus is on me. Serious science, real science has been accused of being fake, me a liar and stupid, - and I am being threatened with censure despite it being clear I was dealing with (or trying to deal) with extremely hostile bullying. The attacks persistence and oddness is a feature I have raised several times - and it speaks for itself. Yet I see no one picking up on that. This is pure Arbcom territory, surely? Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

not yet, but can you link diffs of the attacks? that is the key. people don't want to have to dig through edit history to find stuff, you should provide evidence. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

actually, I see what you mean, and I am mildly surprised that he/she has not be blocked yet, however, drmies appears to have his eye on things over there, and he's usually pretty good about such things. just ignore that IP user. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there: I am very embarrassed to say I have no idea how to make "diff/edits". I can format an article really nicely (I learned how to make nice chemical equations and collapse the section), but (ahem) there are certain things I don't know how to do. Anyway, as you say, they speak for themselves. The user page User_talk:71.33.155.41 shows that Jim1138 issued the level 4. But that did not stop it. I hope this helps. Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

yeah, I was wondering about that. here's a good tutorial: WP:D&L. perhaps you can go, and work on some other articles for a while, you seem to have a good handle on how articles are written. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Snow Rise dropped me a line about the IP/Jono thing. This edit suggests they're not the same--or maybe that's why the edit was made. Who knows. I read over that talk page again, and the edit history of both the IP and the Jono account, and I think that maybe the simplest thing is to bar both IP editors (and Jono) from touching that article or its talk page again, to trim the article down to a stub, and to start afresh. Surely there's others besides those two editors who care for cement. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Hi there, For the final time, I am NOT Jono2013 - and finally the penny has dropped. Jono did all his edits in England didn't he? I am in Stockholm SWEDEN - yes? This is why I do not have a named account...

  Also, CI am hoping you can read my comments above to Aunva? And now I have looked at the history from May of last year, can you also declare whether you acted in as part of the blocking me or removing all the edits of Swedish Gold so that no record of his defense of Jono2013 remains? Now I have looked at the history, your role should be clearly stated because then I am hoping you can tell me why, given you are good at blocking bullies, as Aunva says, you did nothing but allow me to be bullied for more than a week? This is not a debate about the page. Nor my conduct when I have done nothing wrong. As I said to Aunva, I want to know how the heck was a bully allowed to pollute the talk page to such a degree and not only get away with it (despite a level 4 warning), but to such a degree that others not only believe that "editor's" BS, but also cause a change in the debate - so the focus is on me.

  This said, if you do think me being 'persistently bullied is not important, then maybe you should say so. But I must say, I take this bullying that I had to endure very seriously and hope you do too. So I want this debate focused on that. Because I am the one who has had to suffer it. Thanks 213.66.81.80 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

  • That other editor has been warned. The mudslinging comes from both sides. That you're from Stockholm doesn't mean you can't have a named account, and at any rate the Jono thing is immaterial to my argument: that this awful article is better off without the two of you. My focus is on the article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

    Drmies it's fairly common for a sockpuppet (i.e. someone intentionally abusing multiple accounts) to make comments in reply to the other account with the intention I guess as you implied, to make it seem like they're different people. So I don't think the post on Jono's talk page means much other that proving that this is either intentional abuse of multiple accounts or they are different people. I.E. That it can't be appropriate use of multiple accounts. But editing the same article or article talk page already rules out the later anyway.

    In reply to the IP, the comment you quoted does sound bad in isolation, but without context I can't really say for sure that it is bad. That's why I said I needed diffs. If you don't know how to provide them, you really should have asked before posting a long list of complaints backed up by zero evidence thats easy for someone to review. Besides that, if you don't want to go digging up the evidence, you really should consider whether it's appropriate to make the claim. The simple fact is a serious accusation unsupport by evidence is always going to make you look bad. At the very least you could have provided some context like you have now (paraphrasing what was said and where you think it was said) which would give people an idea of what you're referring to and where to look for it.

    Energetically modified cement apparently has a strong Swedish connection but it doesn't sound like the sort of thing that everyone in Sweden is going to know or care about or that mostly people in Sweden are going to know or care about. (In other words, it's not like we're talking about Västerås here.) So if likely sockpuppets (based on behavioural evidence) have shown up in the past all coming from Sweden, it's probably a fair call to investigate more closely (but probably not automatically block all contributions from) new contributors who show up and fit that profile in the future. I wouldn't say it any different for people from Australia or the Los Angeles area (both of which have a higher population than Sweden) in some similar dispute.

    As for your claims about Jono, I don't see how we can know where they come from. As an account, no CU is ever going to confirm or deny whether the evidence supports their claims, and definitely not link the to any IP due to our privacy policy. So all we can know about is what they claim.

    Interestingly, if you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jono2013/Archive, it was suggested by a CU that Jono2013 is between possible to likely the same as Swedish Gold. We obviously don't know what the actually evidence is (and at this late stage, it's unlikely the evidence is even still available). But even presuming the user agent and other details are exactly the same, it seems unlikely a CU is going to conclude that they are 'possible bordering likely' if the IP details suggest a completely different geographical area, unless they also have a reason to think that the IP details may not give the person's actual geographical location, e.g. a proxy may have been used. This would suggest either the IP details can't be trusted or one of the people either Jono or Swedish Gold even presuming they aren't sockpuppets, wasn't telling the truth about where they came from.

    On the whole though, I don't really know or care who's a sockpuppet of who. However I do agree with others that the talk page of that article is a real mess. And it sounds like you care a lot about this article and the subject. While that isn't necessarily a bad thing, given the history here it's probably not a good idea you get too heavily involved at this early stage. There are surely many people articles related to chemistry and material science but mostly unrelated to this article that you could edit. Once you have learnt more how edit and interact with others, perhaps you can return to editing the article in question. (If you have no interest in editing anything but the article or stuff highly related, this suggests a WP:SPA. While SPAs are not intrinsicly bad nor banned, they don't generally last long in articles with a history of problems and contentious behaviour.)

    Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, its useful that Drmies brought that diff up -- I had lost track of where it was to be found, but I had remembered the comment when I read the SPI. Note that the IP makes his introductory comment on the talk page on May 27. However, ten days earlier on May 17, in the midst of the SPI, his personal knowledge of Jono2013 is intimate enough for him to be the one informing us that Jono has "collapsed" from the stress of being harassed and has been barred from continuing editing on Wikipedia by his wife and that "We are all appalled at the constant harassment of Jono2013 and the EMC Page." And that's really just the least of the evidence; between the article's talk page, the AfDs, the SPI and talk pages of other users, I can't imagine many experienced editors reading even a smattering of the pair's posts could walk away with anything but the impression that they are the same person -- it's pretty cut an dry. If nothing else, the CU's finding that they geolocate to the same area shows that the IP's insistence that the operate from separate countries is more than likely to be false. I don't want to belabour this point too much, because action has been taken and we should try to move foreward, but given the editor's past ambivalence to oversight, I think it bears noting just how long and consistent his efforts to confuse process have been whenever he's called out for inappropriate behaviour. He has pattern, repeated ad nauseum (and again, immediately obvious to anyone reviewing the course of his involvement in this project), of responding to criticism (of him or his content) with disparaging and vitriolic comments (read his last comment in AfD from near a year ago and then compare it to his more recent behaviour on Talk:Energetically modified cement to see just how little he has learned to control his temper and not take disagreement about his edits personally) and then crying "harrasment" whenever this beahviour catches up with him, trumping up the the most asinine claims. Take his most recent claims that he has been labelled as having a "national bias" -- no one made any such claims anywhere at the locations he's suggested; he's misrepresenting the fact that other editors were on guard for additional IP's bearing the exact profile as two identities he had already assumed, as noted in the SPI. Whether this is a case of a victim complex actually causing him the believe this ludicrous non-sequitor or whether he is simply trying to confuse the discussion is really a rather moot point -- his behaviour is, regardless, highly disruptive and uncivil and it has to stop. There was a comment in his SPI by an editor suggesting that he should admit to his sockpuppetry (presumably before having the ban lifted); had that approach been followed, he would have one less trick to fall back on the confuse the issue of his long-running antipathy towards proper process. If we don't do better this time around, we're just going to be back here again, because nowhere in this discussion (or any that I've reviewed), has he ever admitted to the least particle of fault in his caustic interactions with others - he's always the victim. That approach is clearly not going away until it is abundantly clear to him that he can't keep that up forever as a means of avoiding consequences for his combative attitude towards other editors who are doing nothing more than applying routine process. Snow (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)yeah, I saw that, although, from what I can see, 213.66.81.80's contributions to the article itself have been constructive, albeit the refs mostly point to one research organization, but he DOES have other sources. he just needs to not let stuff get under his skin, and he should take a look at WP:MOS. he's not that much different from any other new editor, which is what he really is. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

'RESPONSE TO DRMIES

Excuse me....the "mudslinging" does NOT come from both sides. The record must not be distorted. I repeatedly said to ANGRY user I would not engage in abusive TLDRs, only then to get the same foul messages back - accusing me of LYING (in CAPS), of FAKE science (in CAPS), essentially being a fraud, being stupid for an entire week. It went on and on and on and on! And yes he was warned to level 4 in one step and I congratulate the admin who did this! But that was not you. I have been persistently bullied for a week - and you do nothing. YET the moment it comes to discuss this, you are promoting the idea that the page is deleted and that I am banned. And make a pejorative statement "awful article".

• As I said above, the EMC page has been put under the spotlight endlessly and the air poisoned beyond rational debate by an ANGRY user (he used that word in CAPS so many time) whose motivations are at the very least "questionable", bullied me to no end, whereas the Geopolymer_cement page, which by comparison is extremely "promotional" and written by Professor Davidovits (the main proponent of geopolymers) remains. When it has been made clear that no editor connected to EMC has contributed and that Ronin and LTU never supported the page.

• The reason why Snow has made his comments is because of the SPI that was imposed on me for supposed being a sockpuppet of Jono2013. There is not even a record of it on my page. In fact, at the time it was done in such a way that I could not even appeal it. And NOW you say --finally-- I am NOT a "sockpuppet" of Jono2013.

• I don't have a named account to prove I am in SWEDEN. But when I tried to report ANGRY user here? After finally thinking I understood how to do it, and typing my complaint, I hit the save page button, to then be informed that I had to have a NAMED account. Do you see how helpless I have been?

Drmies: I believe this summaries your posture regarding me being bullied: I was banned last year for 3 months with no prospect of appeal, for being Swedish, only now for it finally to be concede I am not a scokpuppet of Jono2013 who was British all along. My IP address was a visible then as it is now. Then when I am bullied persistently for a week, because of defending bogus accusations of FAKE science (in CAPs) time and time and time again, despite that fact no warning was ever issued to me over last weeks dreadful occurrences, whereas the ANGRY user got an immediate "level 4", you now suggest I am BANNED from editing the page. Is that about right? 213.66.81.80 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

chill out, like I said, just forget about that IP user, and let others deal with it. if someone told you that you needed a registered account to report to AN/I, AFAIK, they are wrong. in fact, even when this page gets semiprotected, there is an alternate page, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed_posts. i suggest, that you be the better person, and let drmies and other editors deal with it. maybe you need to step back, and take a breather, do something else for a couple hours, and come back calmly. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Aunva for your kind post. I only want to make sure the record is preserved because I was the one who was bullied. I have been through the most horrible week imaginable and I cannot have it implied that I accept that I was mudslinging. Time and again I said I would not respond to TLDRS. Time and again bogus accusations were made. Every time I picked one of them, I got gobbledygook back and even more accusations. It was just relentless.

For example, the said ANGRY user made the assertion not that everything I had written was refutable, but that he demonstrably refuted it (there is an enormous distinction in forensic terms). To say one has "refuted" serious and credible science (let alone proven science), you must be able to demonstrate that. Not by endless gobbledygook, but by solid referenced articles. What this person has done is make to very serious allegations without ever backing it up, bullied me no end and so that there is no "insult to injury" I do not want this debate "morphed" into something that makes me look equally the aggressor.

I hope you see these words not as someone who is angry, but someone who is very concerned that a week of extremely vile and persistent bullying is not mis-categorized, so that the focus is shifted.

Thank you again for your kind words Auvna. I believe that any admin can show that Jono2013 only edited in England, and the idea that three old farts like me, Jono2013 and Swedish Gold using fancy technology to "cloak IPs" (per Nil Einne) when half the time I'm just trying to make sure my glasses dont fall off my nose as I type, is seen for what it is. I struggle with a lot of this but try my best. Not all of us were born with laptops dangling from the Christmas tree you know.... I remember when computers had punch cards :)

Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

well, it's not hard to figure out an ip address's ISP, and proxies are usually on commercial ISP's. keep in mind, we don't know who you actually are, this is the internet after all. all we know for sure is what you do here. I just try to Assume Good Faith, unless the editor in question demonstrates bad-faith actions. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that confirms how wet behind thums I am as I thought an IP in wikipedia stood for "internet protocol". It goes to show I don't know what an "IP" stands for on Wikipedia, I just see a lot people using it here and assumed it meant "internet protocol". Again, your greater knowledge causes my red ears... and yes, if by your comment, you mean the quality of my substantive edits, that much is I hope clear. I have always been very precise in my writing substantives which is why my editing on the page is so like a snail. But i do not assert unless there is a reference. The section I wrote last week on tribochemisrty was difficult because it is very heuristic and, as such, based on observable effects rather than provable causes. But I stand by my edits because the SINTEF report I referenced is clear. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

well, there is such a thing as being too detailed, or not having a balance of detail. you ned to remember that we're writing for the general public, not as much experts in the associated fields. and yeah, we refer to editors without a registered account as "IP editors" or IP's. you'll get the hang of things, even I am still learning new things, and I think the same goes for even jimbo, and he founded this place. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

this is a very interesting point. Wikipedia has very detailed articles in science which is way beyond "general public" level. Look at some of the wonderful pages on maths, chemistry, etc. So this has what has always puzzled me. Because it is clear, Wikipedia has a very serious side.

So this is what I tried to do: balance the need to show that the article is writing by someone who knows his sciences, and also try to contextualize the information imparted. The difficulty with "contextualization" is that it can be seen a "promotional" in my view. Because if I say 4.5 million cubic yards of concrete, well I would not expect you to know what that means. But if I said to you that is more than the entire Hoover dam plus also of its associated slipways and access roads etc., you then have a "mind's eye" contextualization - yes? So you learn two facts - one that 4.5 million cu.yds are cast in TXDOT projects and also that the hoover dam etc was (in your minds eye) somewhere in that region of volume. Now, that simple contextualization can then being interpreted as "promotional" for those editing Wikipedia who are "hyper sensitive" to this aspect. But I don't see it that way, rather I think contextualization aids the teaching process which is what a good encyclopedia should do. In other words, it should explain and educate and not just "state". 213.66.81.80 (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It is more then contextualizing the information that has caused the issue. The style and tone are both very promotional. The consensus was that it was promotional. Both IPs seem to be there to push agendas. Both are more then happy to claim they are not but say the other clearly is. The promotional wording makes editors immediately jump the the conclusion that the page it crap. The opening a week ago was bad enough to make me not want to delve into it and the contention on the talk page made me confident that all edits would be regarded by one of the two IPs as disparaging something. Other clearly agreed as it ended up here. XFEM Skier (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

There's certainly no doubt that the two of them worked themselves and eachother into a frenzy with accusations of unmitigated bias without any sense of the irony at play. However, I think it needs to be said in User:71.33.155.41( Aka, "Uncle Karl")'s defense, for all of his bombastic approach before hand, he has, since the involvement of Dmries, acquiesced to calls for a calmer, more civil, and less-personalized debate. He's made but one posting since, has kept his comments focused on matters of policy and not directed at other parties, and has even made huge changes in how he formats his posts for the sake of making them easier to read to other editors. I don't think it's fair, at this point, to consider him an equal contributor to the continuing issues there. In that respect, the IPs are polar opposites in how they have responded to community involvement in their spat. Mind you, he is probably comforted by knowing his perspective is closer to the consensus as regards issues of sourcing and NPOV, but that can hardly be held against him and it doesn't in the least alter how striking the disparity is between how he has responded to feedback and how the other IP has. Snow (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You know that is self serving rubbish. Very promotional? You want to see "VERY promotional" go to the Geopolymer_cement page, which by comparison is extremely "promotional" and written by Professor Davidovits (the main proponent of geopolymers) remains. I simply tried to cope with multiple attacks and accusations of FAKE science. And that is as simple as it is, despite my spending time to answer your questions? Have you seen the page now, 22,000 bytes erased in 2 minutes. Without discussion. And you reverted Aunva's edits.

I think the page should be deleted 213.66.81.80 (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

He has now added deleting the talk contributions of other editors when they are critical of him to his repertoire. Snow (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I removed your deliberately flaming words which comprised words I find unacceptable in advancing a debate. Your words to me including "digging of graves" were not only sinister but uncivil. I am asking you to stop flaming. But since you reverted it, it is obvious you intended it. So what can I do? 01:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A warning about uncivil behaviour on an article that an admin just hours ago suggested you avoid, and the discussion of polices relevant to that situation, amongst others, is not in any sense "flaming". Nor are you empowered to remove the talk page contributions of other editors. As to "digging your own grave", that is a common English idiom; it means simply that you are working against your own interests. It has no sinister connotations whatsoever -- it is used when you are suggesting someone is acting as their own biggest liability. Normally I pass on comment of such issues non-native English speakers on such a matter, but I don't really think this is a comprehension issue for you --is it?-- and I'll not have you turn this into the newest entry in your habitual efforts to cast yourself as the victim on the most asinine of pretexts after being called out for uncivil behaviour. That behaviour is well-catalogued at this point as well and if you think these histrionics and hyperbole are going to cover you from scrutiny as regards your ongoing habit to denigrate every editor who disagrees with you in the slightest, I think you're shortly in for a surprise. Snow (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

proposal: topic ban

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

---

Having seen nothing to convince me of voluntary positive outcomes: I propose a 1 year ban on topics related to cement for 213.66.81.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 71.33.155.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, of course we will have to wait to see what the admins think is appropriate in the circumstances, but I'll make no secret of the fact that I doubt 213.66.81.80 will ever desist in his uncivil allegations against other editors on the talk page short of such a move. Having reviewed scores of his discussion postings the last couple of days, I can say that I did not see a single incident of another editor being on the opposite side of an issue from him that he did not take the difference of opinion to a personal, uncivil, derogatory place. He will clearly continue to obstruct any efforts he disagrees with and caste them in the light of being the result of nefarious ulterior motives and harassment focused on him, regardless of consensus or policy. He lacks the rudimentary patience, civility, restraint, and respect for his fellow contributors to contribute in a non-disruptive fashion. In short, he is a textbook bad-faith contributor; if I were overseeing admin, I'd block him indefinitely from the entirety of the project; he's certainly given little enough reason to believe he has any interest in learning policy and adapting his approach to apply the community's standards before his own in even the smallest or most centrally important of ways.
• 71.33.155.41 is, I believe, another matter. I think he has sufficiently rehabilitated his approach to the point where he should be given the benefit of the doubt for the present time. Since Drmies' warning, I believe he is genuinely trying to take policies that have been quoted to him into account, he has slowed and tempered his commentary markedly and has avoided personalized arguments.

On a final note - Good golly. Snow (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban on topics related to cement for 213.66.81.80 --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban on topics related to cement for 71.33.155.41 --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban on cement topics for 213 IP. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support for both. unfortunately, 213 hhas not really gotten the message, and even seems to have a WP:OWN attitude towards the article. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 13:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support for 213. Editor has shown a lack of understanding of his actions causing disruption and seems to believe that it is other people whom are causing the problems. XFEM Skier (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support for both 71.33.155.41 and 213.66.81.80. Their interminable arguments are severely disrupting the article talk page. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

213.66.81.80's response to proposal

• Comment: Under no circumstances have I attacked anyone. I have stated clearly that I will do all I can to aid on technical details. The one thing I am not interested in is taking a serious discussion about substance into a "side show" of personality. The only persno to my knowledge since this was placed here, who has made a number of accusations, is SNOW. I have repeatedly said, I will not get drawn into these. I also at the time said of user 71, that I would not respond to abusive TLDRS accusing me of lying, being a faud, of fake science and that the science was not merely refutable, but refuted. SNOW has shown time and again that despite my endeavors to keep matters on the substantives, that instead, the debate should be moved into my meeting his admonishments. I have not responded to SNOW at all in the hope he will moderate. In fact, if you add up the text, he has written probably 10 time more against me that I have ever said in response.

• But now, when a user (who for the record, claims expertise, and I am not here to doubt that, but merely check that I did understand him correctly) makes a statement that is factually wrong, the next step seems this. Although I am not going to respond to SNOWS comments, I have added technical knowledge to ensure accuracy.

• For example, my (latest) substantive exchange with XFM SKier [here] show this. Do I criticize him for getting things wrong? No. I simply said "I beg your pardon" and placed the facts before his eyes with a reference. I said nothing more. I am not here to "make foolish" anyone. I am simply ensuring that the required expertise is brought on key technical considerations that others have raised. I even start my post with the words "Sorry this is long, but I am trying to meet your comments."

• As another example, when XFM Skier asked another question, I responded even with the words "I hope this is helpful, Kind regards" ([here])

• I accept there is debate. And welcome it. And I accept there a difference in points of view on substantives. But re 71. you only have to see his talk page User_talk:71.33.155.41 to see that he received an immediate level 4 warning and yet all of my responses were civil, but on the strict understanding I was not going to respond to his multiple abusive TLDRs. You only have to look at the collapsed section of the talk page to see how abusive he was. By contrast, during his persistent attacks, I did not receive any warning at all 213.66.81.80 (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

As the user you are referring to I feel like I have to weigh in that your statements of our interactions. I feel like your take on them are fabrications in order to avoid this ban. First I never claimed to be an expert on the topic simply claimed that I had more experience then the target audience, have degrees in related fields. One of the first interchanges [204] no major offense but made sure to belittle me a little to make everyone know who was smarter and the expert, it continues here [205] and ending with this one [206]. In general I don't care but to characterize them as you did above is just not the way I see them or for that matter other editors (user:Snow Rise) [207]. Note also that 218 likes deleting comments on talk pages. XFEM Skier (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I just want to say, all the exchanges I referenced, and the ones you referenced, were made without me knowing about this. I was not informed on my talk page of this and only responded when I read (this afternoon Swedish time) TRPoD's message to me on the subject-matter talk page. Regarding deleting comments on Talk page, I thought one could do so, and if not the case, then it is complete ignoramus on my part, and it was during the period of prolonged and sustained allegations of being a liar and a fraud and fake science etc by user 71, (which like I said, I did not get one warning for because I refused to be drawn into his abusive TLDRS). But I would be a liar to say that I was not stressed, but even then, as your references show, even during the storm of this prolonged attack by user 71 (which had been going on by then for a week), nevertheless in answering your substantive points, I was entirely civil to you. I said to you if you had an further questions just to let me know - because frankly I was, by then, "gasping" for the "oxygen" of a decent discussion. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I gave some serious thought to making a solid block posting composed solely of enumerated difs for scores of the above editor's abusive comments towards other editors, made upon zero provocation than that they questioned some source or claim being made in the article. After spending some time over the last couple of days reviewing his actions over the last year, I know that can be done, and I thought perhaps it might help to illustrate the disparity between how he is presenting his actions and how they have played out during his efforts to preserve the article in the state he prefers, especially as regards these comments:

• "Under no circumstances have I attacked anyone."
• "I accept there is debate. And welcome it."

But the truth is, I have hard time defending that as a productive use of time for any editor. Besides, it's clear that he is now trying to leverage my involvement by casting me as the latest in his long line of boogeymen "harrassers", so I'll keep this as short as I can under the circumstances as an attempt to starve that contrivance of oxygen. In any event, any editor who wishes to investigate the veracity of his most recent assertions and accusations can find all of the information they need on the following handful of pages, without much need for specific versions or difs:

• First there is the SPI establishing that IP 213.66.81.80, Swedish Gold, and possibly a number of other IP's involved in the article are all socks of Jono2013
• The Talk page for Energetically modified cement
• The article's first AfD
• The second AfD,
• User contributions in User-talk spaces for Jono2013 and 213.66.81.80; for the sake of space here, I decided not to pull out multiple specific incidents from these revisions but even short searches through them should turn up plenty of instances of the editor in question making uncivil and combative comments on user talk pages similar to those made the article talk page and AfDs above.

Finally, I'll speak to a few of your points directly, 213. Why would I have a personal issue with, and cause to attack, you? I only came to that article as a result of this very ANI. I had, and continue to have, no particularly strong opinions on the subject of industrial cement. The only person who is making these discussions about your personality is you. Aside from the other IP, who has been admonished, you haven't been called out by any other editor except for the purposes of reminding you to keep your comments confined to policy and avoid making arguments based on your perceptions of the knowledge, character, or motives of other editors, as well as other uncivil behaviour which you seem to feel your creation of the article and interest in the subject entitle you to. Though to be fair, every editor involved there has had to do that a time or two. In fact, perhaps the above links would serve you better than anyone --if in fact you believe you are the victim here-- to go back over your exchanges and see just consistently this has been your response to the involvement of other editors when their opinions conflict with your own in the slightest. How do you reconcile your opinion of how you operate here and your assertion that you are being set-upon with the fact that immediately above, every involved editor who has been polled --including those who, like me, initially reached out to you and tried to defuse the situation-- supports a topic ban for you as the best way of salvaging the article and sheltering other contributors there from your behaviour? People are lining up around the block to comment on your behaviour, and it's no wonder - for nearly a year now, you have gotten away with behaviour that gets most users banned within days. You are not being admonished because we get our kicks out of spending our valuable and limited time on this project making you miserable about your article (which, as Aunva6 points out, you seem to think you own), but because you refuse to try to understand WP:Civility, amongst other pillar policies of this community, because you refuse to respect the other contributors here and the process by which we operate. Your problems with other users here do not ultimately arise from the fact that they are agents of the cement industry or they want to break you down, or any of the other fantastical theories you have suggested -- it's mostly because of the condescending, confrontational way you treat people and your insistence on having everything exactly your way. I don't know, maybe you are an academic, maybe not. But one thing you are definitely not is at the podium of a lecture hall when working on this project. You are amongst peers. Act like it and you might find you are having a very different experience here. Snow (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Look I do not know why you are laboring all of this but for the last and final time, I am not and never have been Jono2013. I live in Sweden and am Swedish. Jono2013 lived/lives (I hope he's is not dead) in England. I have not heard from Jono2013 since Early may of last year. I understand he collapsed because of the extreme stress brought on by the AfD. He went through 2 of them in a week. And he took it badly. I have only revived an email from a relative last summer, telling me his wife had banned him from having anything to to with this ever again. And from what I can tell, he has never returned. And that is all I know. I have not been to England for 12 years. My work is far East or US and recently a little in Africa. I have a much deeper knowledge of material science since than Jono2013 because that is where I made my money in California many years ago and now I consult for a living. Jono2013 was at least 10 years older than me. And yes, we met in Stockholm. I have never made a secret of this. I have said, I do not want to be involved in personalizing matters. I ask you to have in mind that I suffered a long prolonged attack for a week and I do not want any type of engagement like that -- especially when I am preparing for a business trip and therefore all things considered, I have devoted my remaining time to pointing out observations on the substantives. I have not told XFM skier "how to think" or "you must be crazy" or made any such comments.

I have NEVER been admonished for my behavior. Further, I have asked for collaboration several times. I have a very high regard for user:FeydHuxtable as my talk page shows. I also have a very high regard for a whole number of editors on Wkipedia --- especially the one's who "blow my head" with their knowledge of tricky difficult subjects. That is what I liked about Jono2013. He had a first class mind. And he contacted me because he had been pestering Ronin for a couple of years to write a page on here because there was a small article that was incorrect. Ronin and I know each other from years back, strictly professional, but he lives 100 Swedish miles (1000 kms) north from me and we have not seen each other for maybe 6 years - maybe more. Jono2013 emailed me having been given my address from Ronin. Jono2013 came to Stockholm and we spent a few days together --- old farts talking crap together but also talking science. We started the page, and he then went to England and I had no more to do with it until late September of last year. I never made any secret of this because there is no "shame" to it. When all hell broke loose over the AfDs I was in Singapore - I knew nothing about most of it but managed to make a contribution when I got back to Stockholm. Like I say, I knew nothing about any of it till I took a look at how the page was coming along and then saw the AfD which completely shocked me. So I posted a comment but I made an error because I was completely novice to state I had written a very small part right at the beginning. It was an honest mistake and one which I never hid at the time and do not hide now. To explain:

• Since September, I have added only certain sections to the page - largely response to comments made on the talk page: EMC Activation, I expanded with reference to patent and tribochemistry (the last part last week -- but it is all erased anyhow). Section on pozzolanic concrete chemistry, I completely wrote, including the reference to Hagia Sofia. Section on the historical significance of the California results, I wrote. The references to Lord Stern giving 2 lectures about EMCs (including the Robb lecture) I wrote (that has been erased too). I added bits here and there maybe, but largely that is it.

• I have only ever written on that page. Except to correct an entry about the Swedish Rock singer Tommy Nilsson, who is my next door neighbor ---- and I simply corrected some grammar on that. That's all. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's rather odd, given that the check-user at the time of SPI seems to have shown that Jono geolocated to Sweden, along with Swedish Gold (unsurprisingly). There's also the fact that you and Jono have an identical and highly distinctive posting style that is full of idiosyncrasies. You both post extremely long messages composed of short paragraphs of a few sentences each with a header and foot sections at end and long lists of bulleted points in-between. You both use ALL CAPS words interspersed with regular typography, when REALLY want to drive a point HOME, but only EVER in posts responding to when someone has CHALLENGED YOU. I'll let the editors here compare your texts throughout this ANI with those Jono in the first AfD and the article talk page. Most importantly of all, whenever anyone has ever (and I mean ever) dared to question your interpretation of a source or a matter of content, you both fly off the handle in the exact same way, questioning the credentials of the other editor and their right to second guess you. Let's look at Jono's response to someone in the second AfD:

" Excuse me???? WHERE is it promotional? It is discussing the phenomenon in a manner which is substantiated by over 50 journal entries spanning 20 years. Dont just use words, justify them. The journal entries you mention are just two of them, and are listed in the references. You've not written ONE scientific article let alone have any background in what is a highly specialized and rarefied discipline. Have you even read the talk page of the article? For godsake."'

And here's you yesterday, on the article talk page:

"XFM Skier: What do you mean "fantastic claims"? Will you curb pejorative language? 4.5 MILLION cubic yards for TXDOT? I spent an hour writing to you last week. I thought you said you were an expert???? How can you possibly use a pejorative term like "fantastic" when 4.5 million have been cast in spec for a formal DOT? Do you understand the meaning of the word "in spec"? Have you EVER worked on a real U.S. civil engineering project ?"

Taking all of those evidence together, combined with the timing of your posts and Jono's, your shared aims, claims of expertise, locations, and a whole bevy of other converging factors, it's pretty clear that you are the same person. In matters of sockpuppetry, this is called the duck test. And you quack very loudly indeed, my friend. And if somehow you weren't the same person, it would be a clear case of meatpuppetry --which amounts to the same thing-- since your arrived on this IP account in time to support and repeat every element of his argument on the second AfD. But I tell you what, how about I request another checkuser and see if you geolocate to the same place that Jono did, just to put to rest which it is once and for all?

On a side note, please stop outdenting every one of your many posts. This feature is meant to be used sparingly in cases where the postings have become exceptionally narrow. The way you use it constantly in unnecessary situations is causing the posts of other editors to seem to respond to messages that they were not intended to respond to. Indenting is an important feature to allow others to follow the flow and chronology of a discussion more easily, and you are disrupting that function.Snow (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

To say you have never been admonished, for your behavior seems consistent with your behaviour here, in which many have done you wrong but you have never done anyone wrong, and represents a reality that is different then the one percieved by the vast majority of editors here. It has hard to assume that your percieved reality is in good faith when you have shown clear lack of caring about what other editors think and say. There are numerous instances of people telling you to be civil both on this page and on the talk page in question. While maybe people should have given you more direct warnings on your talk page, it is obvious that you have seen these warning, because you even removed one that you did not like. XFEM Skier (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Request filed at SPI

I have made a request at SPI to re-open the case for User:Jono2013 so we can hopefully determine the nature of the link between that user and IP 213 more definitively. I encourage editors involved here to take a look at it, as it has details I think are germane to this discussion. Needless to say, if you have evidence to present one way or another, please provide them in the comments there. Snow (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you persist?

• If I was a sock-puppet of Jono2013, why would I wait until end of September before I made my first edit, when Jono2013 was banned for a ONE week only on 21 May?

• Jono2013 disappeared and never returned. His last edit was the 7 May. Check the record his ban was TWO WEEKS later. He never appealed it.

• for the last final time I am SWEDISH and live in STOCKHOLM 2000 kms away from LONDON as the plane flies. My next door neighbor is the Swedish Rock star Tommy Nilsson --- and that is why that is the only other edit I have ever made on this "project" as you call it. See final point I made immediately above.

I have said it this "project" before - we have a word in Sweden difficult to translate into English: LAGOM.

ps you say User Jono2013 "geolocated to Sweden". Impossible. You are reading what you want to see.

213.66.81.80 (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

why would I wait until end of September before I made my first edit, when Jono2013 was banned for a ONE week only on 21 May? - There are a number of reasons for waiting. The length of time from May to September (5 months) is convenient for technical reasons I'd rather not expand on. Also, it's common to observe long periods of inactivity for people who use sockpuppets (sometimes a year or more). It could be because they get bored before getting a renewed interest, it could be because personal matters keep them busy, it could be that there was another sockpuppet used in the interval that we're unaware of. I've seen editors leave in a huff when they receive a short block, just to return a long time later with a different account in an effort to avoid scrutiny. Suffice to say that it's not really something that makes the possibility any less likely. -- Atama頭 15:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Short precis by maproom

I am pleased to see that the article is now receiving competent oversight.

I believe that the article should do more to make clear, in or near the lede,

• what "Energetically Modified Cement" is
• how it differs from Portland cement
• what the "EMC Activation process" involves

Maproom (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Atsme and BLP violations

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

---

User:Atsme appears to be a single-purpose account dedicated to defaming users and subjects she or he disagrees with and promoting those with which he does agree, specifically on the subject of Islam. He or she has repeatedly posted BLP violations and conspiracy theories, the latter exemplified by his or her recent claim to have filed for mediation on the grounds of TAGTEAMING (the evidence for this being that more than one user disagrees with him or her, so clearly it's a TAGTEAM). I warned him/her about this behavior, but the user waved it off and today posted another such BLP violation with regard to the alleged affiliations of a living person, which I will not repeat the substance of here because, you know, BLP. [208] A block seems like the only way to get this user to take policy seriously. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think she is a SPA. I think that she really just doesn't understand policy. While she has ignored you I think she is expcting more of a hierarchical structure. Pretty much she exibits the behavoir of new users. Before any kind of a topic ban I'd really like to see an univolved party just peek in. Maybe this situation can be fixed without penalty. And even if it is address with penalty an attempt to amek it very clear why should be made.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps mentorship might aid, if she truly does not know policy and doesn't really know that she's going against it as you say. KonveyorBelt 04:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I think if she doesn't understand policy she needs to be willing to defer to people who do. Ignorance can only be a defense for so long. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Again I could be absolutely wrong. But I think she is expecting some type of hierarchical structure here. Maybe she might defer to someone uninvolved. They can try to help address her concerns in a way she can understand. Ignorance can only be a defense for so long. But I think if you topic ban her then that will do nothing. I'm not sure she will really understand why she got banned. That's an invitation to do the same thing elsewhere.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

She's irritating but she's not disruptive. She's trying hard after her manner. I, for one, hope that that's the worst that can be said of me. I don't see any grounds for sanctions against her and I don't see that it'd help anything either. She's not a SPA, she's just interested in Islamic extremism right now. A couple years ago she was interested in fish and had the same kind of issues. No harm, no foul, says I.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. You just made some pretty bold accusations against me, Roscelese. FYI - I'm a she. About your warning - I did respond to you, and asked what you were talking about, and I also asked who you were. Here is the page for all to see.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme&oldid=598929217 You never responded, so I removed it from my Talk page. I have not posted any BLP violations. What you're doing now is making groundless allegations against me, and I happen to be a living person. I probably should have brought your warning to ANI the minute I received it, but I didn't want to bother admins with something so petty. I have not once defamed any users, or subjects, or repeatedly posted conspiracy theories. As for WP:TAGTEAM, don't you think maybe the prior warning you posted on my Talk page and then ignored my questions, and now your groundless accusations here might explain some of my concerns? Are you doing this to me because I opposed the Islamophobia template on IPT, and you support it? I've had little to no prior dealings with you, yet here you are making all these groundless accusations against me. Unbelievable. You aren't even one of the editors I've worked with, so why are you even involving yourself with me? The editors I've worked with, and consider my mentors are User:SerialJoepsycho and User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. They've been pretty demanding of my edits, and it sometimes felt like they were teaming up on me, but we always managed to work through it. They've taught me a lot, and I admire what they've done as editors, so don't think for one minute I don't appreciate their patience and understanding. I can even understand why Alf would think I'm irritating, and I'm sure he can understand why I might get that way at times. Serialjoepsycho has also been very patient, understanding, and helpful. He even gave me advice on how to file for mediation, and even arbitration. Now that's pretty special in my book. I don't think I filed for mediation properly, but it doesn't matter. We're working through the article, and they've both been quite helpful, although still very demanding. I have no ill-will toward anyone, and I am certainly not a SPA, and I would never intentionally violate WP policy, so please stop trying to get me blocked because of groundless allegations. Shame on you. Atsme ☯ talk 07:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Uhhhh this "you are violating BLP by disagreeing with my editing and you're lucky I didn't report you for warning me" is not the sort of thing we hear from a constructive user. I hope the adoption goes well, but like I said, you can only claim ignorance for so long. You are pretty damn lucky that your repeated BLP violations haven't got you blocked. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme: Perhaps this can just be attributed to a miscommunication. However it would be a stretch to call this completely groundless. There is a question of your behavoir. Consider not being offended about that for a moment. I think me and @Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: feel you are really trying here and putting forth alot of effort. I don't wish to put words in her mouth but I think @Roscelese: is kind of just looking for that effort. I'm not your mentor. Maybe Alf wouldn't mind that but you should talk to him first. If not however I do have to suggest that you consider @Konveyor Belt:s suggestion in that you do seek mentorship. Unless I'm mistaken you can find out more here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho:Thank you. I just visited the Adopt-a-user/ page, and requested adoption. Atsme ☯ talk 14:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Another bold statement from Roscelese: You are pretty damn lucky that your repeated BLP violations haven't got you blocked. Hopefully, an admin can explain what I have done to deserve such language, and treatment? Will someone please provide a link to the purported "BLP violation"? My understanding of BLP is that if a statement is true, and properly sourced it can be included. Do indictments and a plea of guilty that is directly related to the quote not fall under that category? Is it not clear right here on ANI that Roscelese is threatening me? My behavior may be "persistent in learning" which some may classify as "irritable", but it has never been to the degree that I've used profanity in a threat to anyone, and yet I am the one under the looking glass being threatened now. How could an editor who is consistently being attacked and disrupted in such a way not be concerned? Atsme ☯ talk 15:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It's linked in the post and I warned you about similar comments earlier. Your comment about indictments is meaningless. ANI process is not a "threat," and you need to stop letting your paranoia overcome whatever willingness to edit collaboratively you might ever have had. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese failed to present a single diff in support of her accusations that Atsme is engaging in BLP violations. I've seen Atsme in dispute before and there were no cases of BLP violations visible. So I'd suggest Roscelese retracts her accusation or backs it up. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I provided a diff in my original post. Either you didn't read it carefully, or you are unaware that the BLP policy applies to all namespaces - you can't make unsupported controversial claims about living people in talk space, user space, or anywhere. Now you know! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, the information in the diff link is not specific to your claim that I violated BLP policy. Are you referring to the quote from CAP, or are you referring to my question to you when you called Front Page Magazine a "fringe source"? There was no comment from you anywhere during that discussion that I violated BLP policy. Your comment was about NPOV. If I violated BLP, why did you not say something right then and there, and why are you being so evasive now? We don't know what you're referencing, and your blanket answer about BLP policy doesn't point out any violation specifically by me. Please be more specific. When you came to the ANI with a complaint about me to the point that you used profanity in a threatening manner, and flat out accused me of a BLP violation, and being a SPA, you should be able to back up your statements with direct links and factual information. You have failed to do that at this point. I think it is important in a claim such as this one that you be more specific about the charges you've brought against me. Atsme ☯ talk 21:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme: The BLP violation is when you claimed that the report was written by people with ties to an organization considered by multiple governments to be a terrorist organization. That's a pretty serious allegation to make when not backed up by a reliable source, which is what our BLP policy does not allow you to do. -- Atama頭 22:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atama:, thank you for the information. The source I used is ranked in the top 10 of conservative magazines, which is a higher ranked source than the local newspaper that was used as a secondary source for the CAP report. If you'll look at the diff link, there is no mention of a BLP violation, only NPOV. I am inclined to believe there was no mention of a BLP violation at the time because there was no BLP violation. Had it been mentioned to me beforehand, I could have provided additional reliable sources. Atsme ☯ talk 23:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the BLP violation is Atsme saying that the CAP folks who wrote Fear Inc are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Nation was quite dismissive of this kind of reaction, calling it "near-cartoonish". If Atsme wants to reduce the scholarship of Fear Inc she will have to find some other method. Defaming the CAP people is not the way forward. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Atsme, since you ask above for an admin to explain what you have done to deserve such "language" (the use of the "profanity" "pretty damn lucky", really?) and "treatment" from Roscelese, I'll try. What you did to provoke Roscelese's response above was to invoke WP:BLP in regard to Roscelese criticizing your editing, because you, Atsme, are a living person. That shows an extremely poor understanding of the policy. Do you believe Roscelese should only be allowed to criticize the editing of dead users..? Also, may I ask what you meant by asking Roscelese who she is? You mentioned that question above as if you're proud of it, and expressed resentment that she didn't answer it. "Roscelese" is the account name of an anonymous person, and it's none of your business who she is. (If you meant "Who are you on Wikipedia", in the sense of "If you're not an admin you can't tell me stuff", then that would also be in appropriate. You need to learn from experienced users, whether they're admins or not.)
• @Serialjoepsycho, I agree with you that Atsme "really just doesn't understand policy", but in my opinion she's running out of excuses to exhibit what you call "the behavior of new users". She's been editing here since 2011 (with large gaps, granted, and unfortunately I can't give the number of her edits, as X!'s tools seem to be down). I've been following her editing for a while — it's been substantial in 2014 — and have seen her receive a lot of good advice and information about how to edit Wikipedia properly, which seems to have bounced right off. I believe it may be time to bring WP:CIR into play. Bishonen | talk 23:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I'm just pointing out my insights here. It maybe time to play wp:CIR. But all I'm saying is if any otherway to handle this then that should be done first. If this wake up call here doesn't work then throw the book. Atsme is considering alot of the advice here. Such as to getting some help from a mentor.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bishonen:It appears you may have misunderstood me, so please allow me to explain. You said in regard to Roscelese criticizing your editing, because you, Atsme, are a living person. That shows an extremely poor understanding of the policy. When I said I was a living person, I meant that I didn't deserve the profanity and the threat from Roscelese anymore than any other living person. I am a human being, not a static computer page. I understand BLP, and I felt those same guidelines should also apply to editors posting about other editors. It's common courtesy. With regards to my comment about the Muslim Brotherhood and the CAP report, it is extremely important for any Admin evaluating this case to understand how it came to be rather than evaluating this case on a simple diff link that Roscelese included in an attempt to get me blocked. To see what work I've done, please compare the following before and after links: Before and After. And that is after half of my edits had been reverted, or deleted for reasons I felt were not solidly backed up by policy.

The sources I cited were as reliable as the CAP report, if not more so. I will simply point out what one of the editors who was collaborating on the project stated: Originally I was just going to move it into the "Funding" section under the CAP report material, but as I was checking the sources I realized that much of this material is problematic, both intrinsically and in relation to this article. I'm not opposed to doing to doing something with it in this article, but it's not clear what. Level three subsections follow.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC) And that was the same editor who originally included the CAP report, and had second thoughts after I disputed it. We both knew we were dealing with controversial subjects, but I certainly did not intentionally violate WP:BLP policy. I acted in good faith, the points I've made are valid, and were backed up with WP policy quotes. It's easy for those who want someone removed to say the opposite, but all an admin has to do is look at the edit history. I may not fully understand the technical aspects of editing, but I am not incompetent, or disruptive. I am the only one who has added most of the positive substance to that article. It was a stub before I started editing, and that should speak volumes about this ANI complaint. Atsme ☯ talk 01:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme:You've added a considerable amount to the article but the quality of your edits are in question. Welcome to Wikipedia. Be bold. If we revert it you can go to the talk page and discuss it. You say your sources are golden. Others have questioned that. I also have to question if you are understanding what people are saying here. I understand you defending yourself but I don't really see that you understand that people are calling your behavoir into question. Not just your noobishness but your overall behavoir.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

When did it become a WP violation or behavioral issue to ask questions when one's edits are constantly being reverted or altered? I was told after the first few reverts to take my edit proposals to the Talk page first, but the others were free to edit at will. I wasn't edit warring, vandalizing, hounding, harassing, using profanity, or being impolite. I was simply editing, and still managed to add another 50% to the article despite all the reverts and deletions of my work. User:Roscelese and User:Serialjoepsycho have done very little in the way of editing on the IPT article, and yet they are here criticizing me with groundless claims. I took the article from being a neglected stub to being halfway decent in spite of all the disruptions I was forced to endure by all the hounding. The edit history for both IPT and the Talk page will tell the true story. The sources I used are being used by editors all over WP, and they are reliable according to policy. The article was slowly coming together, but I'm worn down from the constant hounding of these same editors over and over again. They are following me wherever I go. The sad part is that it has disrupted my ability to edit and improve a WP article. It's just plain discouraging. I seriously doubt there will be further improvements made to the article now. My edits are being whittled away little by little, and soon there will be nothing left. The edit history will show that pattern, too. User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah mentioned a while back on the Talk page that he thought IPT was nothing more than a front for Emerson, and that it should be redirected. Well, I just posted a question on the talk page about redirecting it, so we'll see what happens. My guess is that the article will once again become a stub placeholder for the Islamphobia template. No one else will want to work on it under this kind of pressure. In retrospect, the IPT article was probably never going to grow into anything while there are still editors using Islamophobia templates. Again, the edit history tells the story. If this discussion results in admins wanting to punish me for trying to be a good editor, then so be it. I only ask that you please review the edit history of the IPT article, and the Talk page before making any judgements. Thank you. Atsme ☯ talk 09:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm done. @Atsme:I'm following you everywhere? I've been on two articles that you've been on. On Anjem Choudary was the first. There on the talk page you bring up the IPT page well before I ever posted on IPT. You got a 36 hour block from the Anjem Choudary for your behavoir. Seems similar to the behavoir on IPT. My claims are groundless? Ok fine. I redact everything I've said here.

Please don't take ANYTHING I've said into account when making a decision about Atsme, since it's all groundless.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The block went to both editors for edit warring, and the other editor was reprimanded for name calling. You knew that when you made yet another attempt to make me look incompetent. The changes I attempted to make for Anjem Choudary eventually happened by other editors who agreed with the points I made, and the facts are on that Talk page as well, but that isn't the issue here. It appears that whenever a new or inexperienced editor first comes onto the scene, and tries to improve an article, they tend to make mistakes. That's normal. Every editor who is reading this paragraph has either experienced it themselves, or they've seen it happen to others. I learned my lesson about edit warring, and I have not been guilty of it since, but it appears it will haunt me for the rest of my WP life. The only thing I'm guilty of now is trying to do a good job editing. From March 1st until today, I have been accused of crazy things that are far from the truth, ranging from being called a racist and a bigot to being called an SPA, and noobish, whatever the latter means. I certainly hope the admins realize that I am not incompetent, that I did follow policy, and in the few places I may have misunderstood a policy, my edit was quickly corrected. Perhaps it was a mistake to try to defend myself in this forum. I don't fully understand why a few editors are now trying to make it appear as though I've done something terribly wrong. There's only one reason I can think of for all the effort that's being put into getting me blocked - I made the fatal mistake of trying to get the Islamophobia template removed from the IPT article, and from Wikipedia in general. Of course that debate is still ongoing. I won't even attempt to defend myself anymore. I apologize if I've hurt anyone's feelings, or irritated anyone, or if my "noobishness" violated policy. Please rest assured, it was not intentional. My intentions have always been in good faith, but a person can take just so much before they are forced to speak up in defense of themselves. I just wanted to do a good job making the stub articles GA, and stagnant articles come back to life with updates. I've since learned about stewardship, and what now appears to be guardianship. Again, the edit history and talk pages are where the true and relevant facts can be found. Atsme ☯ talk 17:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thus far the meat of this thread boils down to exactly one diff of an edit which appears to show Atsme discussing sources on an article talk page. What administrator action is being sought, and on what grounds? See WP:GRA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • As I said in my original post, I am requesting a block on the basis of Atsme's continued posting of BLP violations after being warned. BLP also applies on talk pages, in case you didn't know. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

From WP:GRA (I wikilinked it but I guess you didn't read it?): When you say that you or another user did something on Wikipedia, always include a diff of that edit. This allows others to quickly check for themselves what happened. You should include the date and time as part of the diff, unless the timing is not relevant to your request.

Don't worry if there actually have been any BLP violations! Administrators are able to revdel unambiguous BLP violations, but also, if you include diffs, they can still see any BLP violations for which you include diffs. Administrators will then be able to make a decision on the merits of the evidence you provide. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a diff provided for the BLP violation she is talking about and a diff for the warning she gave Atsme. Are you asking for diffs that show other BLP violations like the one that caused her to give Atsme that warning?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, thus far the meat of this thread boils down to exactly one diff of an edit which appears to show Atsme discussing sources on an article talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What you call "discussing sources" is Atsme deciding that a source isn't usable because of an unsourced alleged terrorist affiliation of one of its authors. As I said, BLP violations are not acceptable in any namespace. You don't get a free pass on calling a living person a terrorist because you did it on a talk page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The only one who has even mentioned the word "terrorist" is Roscelese in her frivolous attempt to get me blocked. Does that warrant blocking her? It is not against WP policy to discuss different organizations, and their reliably sourced ties, links, or connections. I have ties to FB because I have a FB page. Ok, so what does that mean? I don't run their organization, and their organization doesn't run me. Would I be a little biased to FB in a debate? Possibly, depending on the issue, so it would probably be best for me to recuse myself in such a debate. It's a common sense evaluation. It is a indisputable fact that one of the authors revealed in a video that he had been a Board member of the Muslim Students Association, video here, an association which reputable sources have cited as having connections to the MB. One source cited a link to actual documentation showing the MSA was organized by the MB. See here. To me that is having ties to the MB. I don't consider CAP a reliable source, and neither did the editor I was collaborating with on the article. I never said the CAP authors were members of the MB, or that they were affiliated with them, and I certainly never mentioned the word "terrorist" which Roscelese has done repeatedly. The CAP report is indisputably problematic. My discussion was about NPOV, and it was perfectly within WP guidelines. If this isn't a clear case of WP:Harrassment by Roscelese, I don't know what is. Can an admin please advise me if I have to file a separate ANI for WP:Harrassment, or can it be done right now based on her false accusations against me, her misuse of the Warning template on my Talk page, her refusal to have any kind of neutral discourse with me regarding her warnings after I responded and specifically asked who she was and why I had the warning template on my user page, and now this relentless, groundless persecution of me on ANI? Do I have any recourse? She has made it quite evident that she has nothing on which to base any of her claims. I am trying to introduce a new article on WP which requires my undivided attention, and this ANI is really cutting into my ability to edit. Atsme ☯ talk 18:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those links are reliable sources - posting them here is a BLP violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really not a good idea to deny that you've done something wrong and then do it again in the ANI thread. Can we have some action, please? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Admin Demiurge1000 has already provided 2 responses that negate your claims. The time stamps in this thread are (1) 23:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC), and (2) 08:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC). The admin's summary was that it "boils down to exactly one diff of an edit which appears to show Atsme discussing sources on an article talk page." Atsme ☯ talk 18:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I think it might be better if you drop this discussion. Or rather, if you'd dropped it a day or two ago. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:Sources states specifically: Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, mainstream newspapers. Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. Are you saying a video interview with a person who was one of the authors of a problematic report is not a reliable source? I checked the credentials of the writers for both the sources I cited, and they aren't anymore unreliable or biased than the reports and sources that were originally cause for the discussion. Wiki policy encourages opposing views. One of the authors has a WP:BLP, and so does the source, both of which were discussed in detail on their respective Talk pages. If you are searching for real BLP violations, perhaps you should check out those Talk pages, and stop harassing me. I've done nothing wrong. My edit was about NPOV, and now I'm just trying to provide pertinent information in an effort to dispel these false allegations. The other source cites the following List as their resources, which include multiple reliable sources, and here is a list of their contributors [209]. Please don't lose sight of what the original allegation is about; i.e., a diff [210] showing a discussion about NPOV on a Talk page. WP policy requires neutrality, so if one editor is citing only criticisms by sources that harbor a prejudice toward the organization, it is perfectly acceptable to balance the overweighted article with opposing views, which is exactly what I did. To do so required pointing out why I felt the initial criticisms were biased, and not reliable. The other editor admitted to the fact the original source was problematic. Either way, the bottom line is still that there was no BLP violation, regardless of an editor's personal opinion about source reliability. These groundless accusations have to stop. Atsme ☯ talk 14:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

On this side we have a claim of repeated BLP violation. On the other side we have a claim that is a groundless accusations. You can't both be right.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

On my side, I have a claim that some people don't understand requirements for reliable sources, and some other people are under the delusion that requires a block. Let's face it - none of the people concerned seem able to provide reliable sources and then discuss them in an appropriate manner. Trout them all, send them to a topic ban after you do a WP:RFC/U. Good luck! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Had I known the issue was specifically a BLP violation, or that it was going to be construed as such because of "unreliable" sourcing, (which I did not realize until now that inline citation was required on a Talk page during a NPOV), and if I had been properly advised about what steps I should have taken to correct it, I would have immediately apologized for the mistake, and followed the instructions. Again, I thought it was about a NPOV discussion. WP:Blocking specifically states: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. I was perfectly willing to correct my mistakes, and it has already been noted above by my collaborative editor that I was not being disruptive. I just wanted to do a good job editing, and help take a stub article to a GA rating. I am now focused on introducing a BLP article for a renowned doctor, but it's hard to focus on my editing with this pending threat hanging over my head. I have always been cooperative, willing, and I would never intentionally violate a BLP. Atsme ☯ talk 14:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone please close this now? Atsme has apologized, promised not to do it again, and she's working on an unrelated article on a neutral topic to get some experience with how things work around here. She's got a formal mentor, and I'm informally helping her with some aspects of her new article. The original violation was subtle and not obvious to newcomers, let alone established editors (I missed it the first time I looked), and this conversation serves no further purpose that I can see.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Protection review - Political status of Crimea

I'm asking for review of my actions at Political status of Crimea as they come close to, if not actually, violate WP:PREFER. This is a continuation of the saga reported at WP:ANI#Reverting merge about the short-lived independence of Crimea as a country and elsewhere. I protected Republic of Crimea (country) yesterday due to the edit war going on there as a result of Dennis's close. Part of that edit war included User:Incnis Mrsi restoring the article, changing the scope a bit and then moving it to a new title. This was then all reverted by others. As I had protected the article Incnis Mrsi then simply did a copy and paste move of the old article to Political status of Crimea. I reverted this and protected that page as it seems an end around our processes and a backdoor way to ignore Dennis's close that may escape all attention. Once my protection has worn off they simply reverted me. I think my actions are justified in the circumstances but given the unusual circumstances I invite review. More admin eyes at this wouldn't go amiss anyway. Dpmuk (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Very proper actions on your part, as far as I can see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone should probably merge this discussion with the one immediately below but it's obviously not my place to do so. Dpmuk (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear sysops!

In short, you can see a content disruption and abuse of privileges by Dpmuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who used it, namely WP:page protection, to degrade Wikipedia, specifically to obstruct a new article creation and push politically biased redirects (although probably without an explicit intent). Henceforth I ask for urgent intervention. The conflict shares its beginning with the scandal around “Republic of Crimea (country)”, but after Dpmuk’s actions it became a separate case. The relevant part of story is as following:

1. Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) redirected Republic of Crimea (country) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Republic of Crimea.
2. Users Tibet2014 (talk · contribs) and XavierGreen (talk · contribs) reverted Dennis Brown’s action and his supporters.
3. I entered into edit war as the third side, by moving the article to Political status of Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), rewriting it to match the new scope.
4. RGloucester (talk · contribs) argued that my page move is not backed by a consensus, but explicitly clarified that sees nothing wrong in creation of the “Political status of Crimea” article.
5. RGloucester reverted my page move, so, Political status of Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) became a redirect as a standard page move side effect.
6. Dpmuk protected “Republic of Crimea (country)”, citing edit warring (I don’t disprove the reason of this single action, of course).
7. When I came back, the original article was protected. The only thing I can do was overwriting an (inadvertently created) redirect at “Political status of Crimea” with a relevant article. Hence a new article, with a new page_id, was created. It had noticeable chunks of recently created content, that wasn’t ever obstructed by editors, and indeed implicitly approved by RGloucester.
8. Soon at WP:Administrators' noticeboard, No such user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) expressed certain concerns about spawning of articles citing various multiletter acronyms. One can easily check that nine such articles already existed, and if the tenth is not sufficiently good, then it is so because started to be built only recently.
9. Dpmuk overwrote “my” article with another redirect to Republic of Crimea, a Russia’s federal subject, apparently prompted by No_such_user and trying to mimic Dennis Brown, but without understanding the situation. This redirect might deserve WP:Redirect#DELETE under points 2 and possibly 5, but in any case, it is grossly confusing and this edit certainly would be branded as a politically motivated WP:vandalism were effected by an IP or a newbie.
10. Dpmuk protected the page (a new article a minute before that) with a nonsensical explanation To match protection on Republic of Crimea (country), then dodged my attempt to discuss the matter and continued to obstruct the new article.

I do not deny that acted as a minor participant in the known edit war, in “Republic of Crimea (country)”, but Dpmuk’s actions on “Political status of Crimea” were purely disruptive and grossly incompetent since, before Dpmuk, there never was any war (I repeat: RGloucester stated that doesn’t object against a new article). A person who will resolve the problem on his/her own responsibility, without deliberations and protractions, will earn my respect, and possibly one of several reasonable users too. Independently, I ask somebody of smart (and sufficiently courageous) sysops to watch both the article and my user_talk, to deter possible further Dpmuk’s disruptions.

The offending person is notified both of the abuse (2 hours ago) and this discussion. The title Political status of Crimea, a hot topic, as well as its aliases recently created by me, namely Crimea question (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Crimean question (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), now point to another article in a manner suggesting that Wikipedia unilaterally supports the annexation.

Regards, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Only 1 person tried to do things unilaterally, and now they're here because they didn't get their way. ES&L 18:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• What I see from you is edit-warring followed by a failure to even attempt a discussion (saying "I give you exactly two hours to correct your mistake before appealing to the community" doesn't count). Then you bring it to the drama board, with an accusatory thread title (which is generally frowned upon). This doesn't reflect well on you. -- Atama頭 19:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Incnis Mrsi might be so-and-such bad, but the incompetence is an incompetence, and the abuse in an abuse. Dpmuk saw a content fork? Perhaps. What a competent admin should do in this situation? I’ll answer:

1. Check whether an obvious fix is possible. In this case it wasn’t, because Dennis Brown’s “closure” was under a heavy criticism, if only because the discussion was interrupted prematurely.
2. Identify whether the internal copyright was infringed. I hint: it wasn’t.
3. Identify whether less obvious fixes are possible. Yes, they were: merging to 2014 Crimean crisis, for example, because all this stuff originated from there. Or a merger with accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation.
4. Try to discuss these less obvious fixes. You can easily check whether Dpmuk, or something else, attempted something of that sort.

Instead, we see sysops that do nothing but (unsuccessfully) try to mimic senior admins such as Dennis Brown (this is similar to that I saw in ru.wikipedia; you can ask user:Ymblanter about that as he saw it too and even took part for some time in his previous life), sysops that defend arbitrary redirects, “closures”, and protections because they are committed by other sysops, and no one of them, who are present here, did anything to fix an obvious wrongdoing in an acceptable way during several hours, preferring to babble about accusatory titles, unilateral actions, and so. I detest such conduct and do not attempt to earn a respect of most of this people. Yes, I “acted unilaterally” and didn’t evade responsibility for it, unlike most of you who ever hides behind someone’s back. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown is a senior administrator? Is there a SRfA for that? I've heard of Chief Administrator, that being Courcelles, but neither Chief Administrator nor Senior Administrator exists. And if there were one, well Dennis Brown is still quite an administrator novice having not even reached 2 years on the job yet. Dennis isn't respected for being a "Senior Administrator", he's respected for making respectable decisions and acting in a respectable manner. There is no reason not to mimic Dennis. He's very often cited as containing an element that is sorely needed in most administrators. If Dpmuk, who has seniority over Dennis, wanted to mimic Dennis, it's not because he's a senior admin. It's probably because Dpmuk sees some merit there. So please, save your logically fallible and demonstrably untrue accusations to yourself.--v/r - TP 20:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Like--Mark Miller (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been an admin since 2009 and I still don't consider myself a "senior" anything. -- Atama頭 22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Instead, we see sysops that do nothing but (unsuccessfully) try to mimic senior admins... sysops that defend arbitrary redirects, “closures”, and protections because they are committed by other sysops, and no one of them, who are present here, did anything to fix an obvious wrongdoing..."

You might have a legitimate case, Incnis Mrsi, but you do realize that you are coming to the Administrators' noticeboard and making broad generalization about how ineffectual and cowardly you think admins are. This finger pointing will not get you the result you are looking for. I'd adjust my approach because you are insulting the people you are asking to help you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

In Incnis Mrsi's defense, this really is the best place to bring this matter. We don't have a noticeboard specifically for reporting administrator misconduct. Your advice about not insulting administrators is good, though I try not to take such comments too personally (even though I'm surely included personally in this particular insult). Incnis Mrsi is clearly upset and I view everything they're saying with that in mind. However, having said all that, it looks like this is ending up as a rant and won't lead to anything productive. Incnis Mrsi got off on the wrong foot to begin with by threatening an administrator if their demands were not met (which was somewhat circumvented by the admin asking on this noticeboard for a review of the protection) instead of discussing the issue civilly as they should have. This is clear battleground behavior and Incnis Mrsi is going to need to take it down a notch if they want to be taken seriously. -- Atama頭 23:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, believe it or not, Atama, I was trying to be helpful! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I've never seen you not trying to be helpful. :) -- Atama頭 03:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I’m not especially upset. This community is rotten: several years ago a guy making his edit war with the help of page protection feature would certainly be ostracised, even having a legitimate pretext for his actions. Now the guy who put a bunch of rubbish to “… summary” fields, pushed his web interface several times, and eventually protected the page indefinitely, in an apparent attempt to win the favour of Dennis Brown, is tolerable. This guy already demonstrated an outrageous misunderstanding of wiki when implied that I have to ask for a community consensus to reuse certain Wikipedia content in a new article. You, gregarious beings, read it because you accustomed to hide behind each other and nobody is willing to intervene in conflicts of such kind on his/her own responsibility. Wikipedia shall cleanse itself of it, or lose. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we arn't hiding behind anything. We don't like being bullied by your temper. You came here making wild accusations without an ounce of credibility to them, demanded blood, and then proceeded to make wilder accusations about all of us. It's your behavior that has tuned us out to your cry for help. You are responsible for the response you're getting. Had you come here with a calm head and laid out just the facts without any additional commentary or drama, then we might have given it a careful review. Similarly, had you approached Dpmuk without the threats, he may have given you a polite response or considered another solution. Your anger, threats, and accusations are the root of all of this.--v/r - TP 17:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed, only one person tried to do things unilaterally: the admin. He cannot block a page simply because an editor dissents. The editor can in his own right create a completely new article if he wishes so. Per WP:FIVEPILLARS he doesn't need to ask permission or seek consensus when creating a new article (see also WP:BEBOLD). I, too, agree with @Incnis Mrsi that this article has all the merits to be a standalone article. Do I have to ask permission to create Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol? No I don't. WP:FIVEPILLARS and WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH gives me the right to do that. But this admin went in and blocked the guy that had a differing point of view by unilaterally blocking the article indefinitely without any basis. That seems extremely harsh for a page with only 8 edits of which 3 were performed by the admin himself. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that he did not "create a new article". He moved an article that was merged to a new title and expanded the scope, which is an unacceptable way of doing things. If he had just gone and created Political status of Crimea, then there would not've been this nonsensical issue. RGloucester — ☎ 02:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What namely became “unacceptable” after I overwrote the redirect? There is a significant extent of content duplication in Wikipedia, especially on loud international conflicts. Yeas, I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but no community consensus ever discouraged either “Political status of Crimea” specifically or such kind of articles in general. Wee see no precedent of a negative response. BTW, in our brief conversation you was rather supportive. If one felt the article is redundant, then s/he could use {{merge to}}, AfD, or notifying editors of other articles via talk: pages, before applying the page protection. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• I guess that Wikipedia should have been invited at today's G7 meeting on Crimea then. Count Iblis (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• No one in Amsterdam wants to see a bunch of geeky slobs fouling up the city. Come on, Count. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Under what basis did you protect this indefinitely? He only reverted it twice so he did not violate WP:3RR. Furthermore, I just reviewed the page history and I only see one edit war that involves you as an admin and another editor. Since when can administrators silence editors that dissent? I don't see your action as justified:

1. first because the edit war only included two people,
2. second because you were one of those two persons,
3. third because there were no violations of WP:3RR, and
4. fourth because there are other venues (such as WP:AN/EW and WP:RFPP) but you chose to unilaterally block the page indefinitely.

Even worse, you opened a request at ANI and I'm now being told that since this discussion is ongoing here at ANI that I can't request the page to be unprotected because of this. You are an admin. You must use the tools you were given with extreme care. I think you erred this time.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support actions by Dpmuk and Dennis Brown. Editors who want to urgently tell the world the true facts should use some other website because articles follow due process. Protecting a page indefinitely (meaning until the fire is put out) is doing the edit warriors a favor because the alternative would be blocking the editors who are trying to workaround the standard procedures. The above claims of "involved" are mistaken. Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Your assessment is incorrect. Per WP:EDIT, one of our core policies, "Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide the better it is." Then, a little bit further down, "Please boldly add information to Wikipedia, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles." Furthermore, per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, another policy, Wikipedia does not follow "due process" as you attempt to assert. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• And WP:CONSENSUS trumps all of that, which defeats your entire argument, and works against what Incnis Mrsi was trying to do. -- Atama頭 13:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please show me where is there consensus to not create this article and to redirect it to Republic of Crimea. There is none. Understand now? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Replies to some of the points above.

• The protection was indefinite not infinite. I fully expect for the protection to be lifted be either myself or another admin once there is agreement on the way forward.
• Anyone claiming there wasn't an edit war, or that the only edit was involved me and was at Political status of Crimea should take a look at the history of Republic of Crimea (country). It's pretty clear that Incnis Mrsi's actions at Political status of Crimea are a continuation of that. Indeed they admit that with the comment "(must go in the same edit history as Special:PermanentLink/600940464, but I currently unable to implement it because of talk:Republic of Crimea (country) #Full protection" where they admit they'd do the already reverted move again if they could. The fact that they then did it by the back door should not allow the action to escape scrutiny and this is what I acted to stop.
• As I said when bringing this issue here I was aware that my actions could possibly be seen as being against WP:PROTECT. When I did the first short protection I didn't ask for review because it didn't seem worth it for such a short protection. When I did the longer protection I asked for independent review to confirm my actions were reasonable as I accept they could appear to be against our policies - although I believed they were not.
• I am aware that you don't normally have to get permission to create a new article but here there was a "consensus" that there shouldn't be such an article and in those circumstances we do generally require a new consensus before creation. I could also point you at WP:BRD. You tried boldly creating a new article by moving and re-purposing the old one. This was reverted. At this point it would have been normal practice to discuss rather than attempt to do it again by the back door.
• Anyone that thinks I'm doing this to gain favour with Dennis Brown is very much mistaken. I saw an edit war, I acted to stop it. I saw an attempt to, what would be seen by many editors, continue that edit war by the back door so stopped that.
• As it happens it appears obvious to me that Dennis's "solution" is unlikely to be the long term solution. However at the moment it's the only thing we have so that's what we go with and the stability it brings about is a good thing. I'd urge all editors involved to continue the discussion and, possibly, come up with a new consensus. At that point articles may well be unprotected but it seems clear to me that any unprotection before that point is just going to result in edit warring.

—Dpmuk (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• There is no consensus that prevents the subject of this article from being created. NONE. There is no consensus to make the subject of this article a redirect to Republic of Crimea either. I hereby formally request that you show us this supposed consensus that you refer to. Whatever the user did is irrelevant 'cuz this is an entirely new subject that can be developed to become something intrinsically and fundamentally different than all other articles. You have been shown precedents for this. Want a better solution? Unprotect it and move it to Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol and let us develop it the same way that we have developed Political status of Puerto Rico and all others. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest developing it in your user space, in the draft namespace, or somewhere. This will enable editors to see if it significantly different to what was at Republic of Crimea (country) and / or to see if there is a consnesus for such an article to exist. Seeing the comments in the merge discussion I do wonder whether such an article may be the best way forward but personally I'd like to see consensus for it before unprotecting and it would probably be easiest to get a consensus if people can see a draft version. At the moment I strongly suspect that unprotecting will only result in more edit warring. Dpmuk (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let me explain myself so that you can understand my point of view: when that article was created it was about the independent country. But we already have that covered at International recognition of the Republic of Crimea. However, since the article was protected, I have not been able to evolve the article to its natural form: an article about the political status of the Republic of Crimea as a federal subject and the city of Sevastopol as a federal city. See where I'm going now? Unfortunately, due to your protection, I'm inhibited from creating such article because if I do so other admins will say I'm trying to violate consensus, or whatever. So, what I'm asking you is to unlock it and let me perform these new changes which would make the article unique. I believe that my solution is reasonable and will let us move on and create an encyclopedia. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Dpmuk: here it is: User:Ahnoneemoos/sandbox. I think this is a reasonable solution. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Ahnoneemoos I agree that at first glance appears a good start which is quite different to the problem article. Did you copy some of the article from other places? If so you'll need to be careful with WP:ATTRIBUTION. @Dennis Brown: to see if he's happy that this doesn't go against his close - I don't think he'll mind but trying to reduce the chances of an edit war in case this does happen. Otherwise if there's no objections I don't see a problem with this happening. Dpmuk (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• • I trust my peers to decide. I know people find it hard to believe, but I really have no POV on the subject matter. I came in, read consensus, made the call. My honest opinion is exactly what I wrote, it would have been cowardice for me to close any other way, to simply avoid controversy. I completely understand (and respect) opinions to the contrary, but there are clear policy based reasons for the close, even if I was extraordinarily (and uncharacteristically) non-verbose. What the community does with it afterwards is up to them, whether it is to support, revert, change, etc. I really don't concern myself with that. If the consensus changes, so be it. If they say I made a mistake in procedure, I will learn from it. If I'm insulted and defamed, honestly I just ignore it. I've seen a lot of claims to the contrary, but for me, closing is a very detached and unemotional thing, a necessary function foisted upon experienced editors. My opinion as to the new article is irrelevant. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think the wisest thing to do would be for an administrator to delete the redirect at Political status of Crimea, and allow for a new article on the subject to be developed independently, and subject to consensus-based discussion and review by other editors. I would advise against the title [[Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol", as that would imply that Sevastopol is not in Crimea. Sevastopol is in Crimea, it is merely not in the Republic (federal subject) or the Autonomous Republic (Ukraine). RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

“Indeed they admit that with the comment "(must go in the same edit history as Special:PermanentLink/600940464, but I currently unable to implement it because of talk:Republic of Crimea (country) #Full protection"… the action to escape scrutiny” – rolling on the floor laughing on your administrators, en.wikipedia. Does the text (quoted by Dpmuk, but without presenting the diff) of my edit summary demonstrate a plausible intent to escape scrutiny? Or, maybe, the initial proposal discarded by Dennis? Or is this thing an escape of scrutiny, really (note the edit is dated before I rolled Dpmuk back the last time)? The people who really have some weight in this community should walk with all their crowd to user talk: Jimbo Wales and beg your founding father to relieve you of all this ridiculous “administration” and appoint a dozen of smart senior admins (I’d recommend user:Ymblanter, user:Bbb23, and user:Reaper Eternal to be included) capable to interfere with various heroic actions of sysopped boys/girls next door. If you will leave actual contributors under an unchecked heel of the latter for a prolonged time, then you’ll remain admins over imbeciles and spammers only. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Earlier today, Incnis Mrsi made this edit making Crimea question a re-direct to an old/deleted version of his Political status of Crimea article and pipe linked it into Crimean Peninsula with this edit. I'm not going to waste time figuring out what's going on here, but that doesn't look good to me. (I've got rid of the weird re-direct to the ex-article) DeCausa (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm neutral about the protection, but the current redirect located there is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Right now, if you want to view the article, it sends you to Republic of Crimea; that is, to a subject of Russia. It should be changed to point to Crimean Peninsula or 2014 Crimean crisis. CodeCat (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I changed the redirect on Crimea question to 2014 Crimean crisis. DeCausa (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the current NPOV-violating redirect is placed by the same person who indefinitely protected it. Placed two times, exactly the same redirect. The second time after this person was explicitly notified that this redirect does not conform to certain established rules (see above, p. 10). Edit warring by Incnis Mrsi is bad, but not because it is generally discouraged, only because Incnis Mrsi hasn’t the page protection feature. Edit warring by Dpmuk is good, because he has the page protection feature. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• NOTE - International recognition of the Republic of Crimea has been moved to Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol. RGloucester — ☎ 18:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal Notice from InternetQ

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

---

Hello,

InternetQ has posted a legal notice to the InternetQ talk page.

Tim.thelion (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to Mark.int in this diff. Is that right?   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes Tim.thelion (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a legal statement on the InternetQ talk page with an update on what has truly happened with the company subsidiary's in Poland legal case.

Thanks

Mark.int (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark, may I ask whether your intent was to provide information, or to threaten? Tim.thelion (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It is probably worth pointing out that we don't accept documents uploaded by contributors as sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that as a legal threat. Not sure why you would. That said, Andy is right of course. That's a primary source. The article needs secondary sources to counter the negative claims. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't so much that it is a primary source (though that is relevant too), the real problem is that we have no way to verify the authenticity of such uploaded documents. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well actually, that's the main problem with primary sources :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Government reports are primary sources, yet they do not suffer from such problems. Tim.thelion (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A primary source is a primary source, and they all suffer from the same problems. Regardless though, in this particular case that PDF doesn't even look legit to me. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(EC) While of course, without verification of the uploading parties, we can be sure of its authenticity, I don't see any particular reason to doubt it. It looks like a perfectly ordinary legal notice a law firm or lawyer would draft for a client. No one ever suggested it involved the courts in any way and in many (most?) countries there's no requirement for the courts to endorse a simple legal notice. Of course as with many legal notices, it does carry the explicit threat they may involve the courts if they feel it's not responded to appropriately. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I said "court" when I was thinking "law firm", sorry. What set me off was this: ...is definitive and final may cause the civil and penal liabilities. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I still don't think there's a good reason to think it may not be genuine (although as I've said we can't be sure either way in the absence of confirmation from the people involved). Bear in mind it's apparently a Polish law firm and writing this notice doesn't really sound like the sort of task you'd assign to the top partners in the law firm, more likely the intern or whatever, so minor mistakes in grammar or explaination don't seem sufficient reason to think it's fake. It's not like this sounds like something a 419 scammer wrote. In fact looking more closely I'm not sure if this is from a law firm per se, or a sole practioner. (In the later case, that doesn't really mean we should expect better since it's resonable the person may have been primarily hired for their expertise dealing with Polish law not in writing legal notices in English, and we should also still expect them to have made less effort then something more important.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

(EC) I agree with Tim.thelion that it's more complicated then that. For example the uploaded source mentions a court docket. If anyone wanted to bother, they could track down that docket and confirm that the case was completely overturned on appeal. That would be a primary source but if you're citing the document, it's not really a question of whether trust the authenticity but whether you trust the person doing the verification, as with any source that you can't verify yourself. (With the added problem that the court docket is likely in Polish.)

Also of course, whether we're sure we're simply describing rather than intepreting the primary source and whether it's significant enough to mention if no secondary source did.

Or to give another example, representatives for InternetQ could upload the legal notice to their website. Or they could ask OTRS help to confirm someone here is really who they say they are and representing InternetQ. Either way, this would ensure the legal notice is authentic, i.e. representatives for InternetQ are really making those claims. It won't of course ensure the claims in the legal notice are correct.

We do have a classic problem where there is a significant change to a case against a company or person on appeal, but where by that stage, no one really cares so it's difficult to find reliable secondary sources discussing the result of the appeal even if we have an abundance of sources discussing the initial case and result.

While I'm generally strongly opposed to using primary sources by themselves, if court documents can be found this is one sort of case where IMO it's fair to make an exception provided we are careful that we don't intepret the court case/document.

However it doesn't look like this is a problem here since a source has been found. (And actually I'm not sure we even have an abudance of reliable secondary sources on the initial case, I only see one in the article.)

Nil Einne (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the "statement" is a legal threat. When posted to the talk page of an article, that threat appears to me to be aimed at the Wikipedia community.--ukexpat (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please remove immediately the false reference that "In November 2011 the company was successfully sued for a paid SMS scam", along with the misleading references at the bottom. Not seeing it. It's not exactly courteous, but not a legal threat. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The legal threat is "Spreading untrue information ... may cause the civil and penal liabilities." Tim.thelion (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup - the final paragraph of the uploaded document looks like a clear and unambiguous legal threat to me. Incidentally, looking at the uploaded file, it doesn't purport to be a court document - it is (or claims to be) a statement from an 'Adwokat' concerning a court ruling. As such, and given that the document refers to "my client", it would entirely useless as a source for any supposed court ruling even if we could ascertain that it was genuine. We couldn't rely on the legal interpretation of an involved party as trustworthy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh the PDF... didn't read the PDF, sorry. Still not sure how that could be construed as a legal threat to Wikipedia, but OK. In any case that doesn't look remotely like something that came out of a court. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I was a bit worried about the wording in the PDF as well, but we have to look at the intent here. Mark.int was uploading the document to verify the overturning of the judgment against the company, and stated as much on the talk page. If Mark.int had said that Wikipedia needs to comply with what the document is stating, then that would be a legal threat, but that hasn't happened. I'll point out that there is a secondary source verifying this information (actually, it's complaining about how unfair it was that the judgment was overturned). -- Atama頭 21:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The document in question has today's date on it. It is written in English, though referring to a Polish court case. I see no reason to assume that it was created for any other purpose than to upload to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Um who said it came out of a court? It's a legal notice sent to wikipedia contributors (and could be other places) allegedly by representatives on behalf of InternetQ. Nil Einne (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Tim.thelion directly asked Mark.int if this was intended to be a legal threat, and Mark.int said that they just wanted someone unbiased to change it. I usually err on the side of caution about these things (heck, the only thread I've ever started on ANI was when I thought I had been given a legal threat, and I was wrong) but this is a somewhat unambiguous one. Unless we get a more direct threat I'm not concerned. I guess we'll find out, because I think that Mark.int wants us to remove sourced information that I doubt anyone is willing to do, so we'll see what happens. -- Atama頭 21:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Just as a note regarding the comment above "That would be a primary source but if you're citing the document, it's not really a question of whether trust the authenticity but whether you trust the person doing the verification, as with any source that you can't verify yourself." - I'm not quite sure how they're considered with regards to a company, but if the subject is a person court documents are explicitly disallowed as sources per WP:BLPPRIMARY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

My view on this is that it's not an unambiguous legal threat, and Mark.int is not making a legal threat himself, but it's good grounds for cautioning him not to go down that route, and see also Ticket:2014032410011965. More eyes will not hurt at all. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Actually, I was about to turn this in as a legal threat before noticing that the same had already been done. Pointing out that the thing we're basically accusing you of doing can have a civil cost would seem to fit quite nicely into the description of a legal threat in past cases I've seen here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Picking up on AndyTheGrump's point that Wikipedia does not accept documents uploaded by contributors as sources, review of the document shows that the main paragraph deals with the substance of a court case, appeal and finding. The last sentence is an implied legal threat about anyone not abiding by accurately reporting the main paragraph's findings above. That's my take for what it's worth. Don't see a real threat to the Wiki community, just standard lawyer huff and puff to close out a letter -- sort of like "this letter is written without prejudice to my client's legal position to do blah blah" in other such standard sign offs. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zebrasil.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 29 March 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.

Detroit Joseph

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.

---

Tendentious editing and warring at Farshad Fotouhi. Detroit Joseph continues to post content to the article and the article's talk page in violation of WP:BLP. Note previously redacted edit summaries starting in December 2013.

Topic Ban Proposal

I propose Detroit Joseph be banned from further editing of Farshad Fotouhi.

Recent diffs displaying TE and persistent BLP violations, despite being alerted to BLP issues in Dec 2013.:
1
2
3
4
5

I have reviewed the edit history of the article and the talk page, evidence of a vendetta against the subject of the article and continued posting of content in violation of WP:BLP, trolling of editor talk pages.

There are no signs that the editor will voluntarily refrain from further edits. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Detroit Joseph's BLP violations regarding this person are intense and chronic. A representative talk page comment by Detroit Joseph is: "You need to read Crain's Detroit Business, to know that your hero, Farshad Fotouhi, is a very bad, corrupt man. Just because he's Iranian doesn't mean he's a good guy. Look at Mamud Ahmenutjob.” The editor seems determined to portray this person in the worst possible light, and a topic ban is now in order. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Having taken a look at the edit history, particular the edit summary for a Feb. 14, 2014 edit, it is clear that this editor has a personal vendetta going against the subject here. This is not the place. Carrite (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Simply put, if you've got such an obvious grudge against a BLP subject, you shouldn't be editing that page. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Suppport Grind your axe outside of Wikipedia, please. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support with the normal "broadly construed" as it is the topic rather than that particular article which is a problem. This recent diff shows the style—Wikipedia should not be used to settle scores. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Does anyone dispute that Paul Strauss halted a $2 million donation to the Wayne State College of Engineering because of Fotouhi meddling with Auner's vital breast cancer detection research? Does anyone dispute that James Woodyard resigned because of Fotouhi's lack of integrity? Anyone? Anyone at all? Those are pretty big things. And they're just the things that have been reported in verifiable newspapers. Hey, here's a thought: maybe Wikipedia should have a policy that things need to be verifiable with reliable sources. Too bad there's no such policy. Then you can just invent some personal vendetta, attribute it to me, and use it to ignore what has been published in Crain's Detroit Business and Detroit News. Detroit Joseph (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:REHASH. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• SupportThis has been going on for months. Joesph has repeatedly made it clear that he cannot edit in accordance with our neutrality policy and continues to fail to get a clue. -- John Reaves 20:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• Weak support What Detroit Joseph needs to learn is that Wikipedia:Reliable sources are irrelevant when it comes to pointing out the corruption of corrupt university officials. Wikipedia's goal in those cases is to merely be a carbon copy of the corrupt official's page on the university website. A picture of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad now follows. Detroit Joseph (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Admin Conduct and Competence Questions

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

---

Today there was an article recreated by an obvious sock User:Shiyasnazarptpm of User:Shiyasnazar. I opened the SPI, I also nominated it as A7 and G11 as we have in the past before when the article was created. The sock contested deletion and I left the link to the SPI [[211]]. The administrator now is accusing me of incompetence in tagging in an attempt to cover their own laziness and or incomptence. This is the first iteration of [[212]] of the article, the only sources being provided are owned by the owner of the pageant. I tagged it as a CSD [[213]]. Here comes User:Amatulic who states "rm G5 speedy nomination - you need to provide evidence, and you haven't" That's where the problem starts, It's clearly on the talkpage and it's the only csd criteria he is taking issues with. I reverted it because there is evidence [[214]], It's on the talkpage, their userpages and the SPI, now if the articles have previously been deleted I can't link to them for evidence and moreover I don't have to when it's deleted and in this case username alone and editing habits is enough. If he can't see that or too lazy to see that I'm wondering is this a habit in his administration? this can be a broader forum for his conduct, obviously this isn't blockable and we can't strip the mop from him but I'd like to know if this is habitual. The sad thing is he could have easily avoided this by a simple hey you know what I missed the SPI link, I'm not comfortable making a call on it let's wait until it's completed then we can delete. But accusing me of disruption to cover his laziness is not ok. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

For further background, read:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Queen of India
• User talk:Amatulic#CSD Alteration

And no, I'm unwilling to delete based on G5 for an open SPI case, if you want to call that "habitual" so be it. Other than that, and those two conversations links above, I have nothing else to add. I will unlikely be in front of my computer for the rest of the day either, so however this plays out, will have to be without my involvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You didn't do much this morning anyways so maybe your absence can help fix the mess. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest striking " in an attempt to cover their own laziness and or incomptence." It's not constructive to resolving the dispute and is unbecoming. You seem frustrated, which happens, but try to remain pleasant. Good luck! Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I struck it and yes I'm extremely frustrated. It's always frustrating to see people that are in positions of trust in the community act with so little regard to process or not think things through. I do understand this may be on the more minor side of things but I've been here for 5 years, I work hard every time to make sure my tags are well thought out. I know that there will be disagreements but this one screams bad faith or something worse. I'm not sure how else to describe it other then I have before. I also understand making a mistake and saying hey I missed that, unfortunately I have to do that often but there again, this is a person in a position of trust within the community that seems unable to do so, that and the behaviors are pointed out. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh. This is frustrating. Trouts all round. Amatulić said [215] he couldn't find the duck test "clear". Duh. The sock was using the same freaking name. It doesn't really take much effort to see the identity between "User:Shiyasnazarptpm" and "User:Shiyasnazar", when they re-create the same article, does it? Trout to Amatulić, because this is really wasting the time and goodwill of editors who do the thankless task of page patrolling and sock tagging. Trout to H.i.a.B for the incivility. As for the article, I'd speedy it right now, if it wasn't for the fact that an independent good-faith editor has in the meantime taken the article over and indicated they consider it potentially notable, so it's better to just let the AfD play out normally. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That is my fault, I was in a bad mood anyways and this just set me off. I was talking to the other editor in the meantime and we were having a productive disagreement. I can just drop it but really all I wanted in this is an apology. I don't have to have one I just hate it when I get accused like that and I was already a ticking verbal bomb this morning anyways cause of off wiki crap. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: Just some general advice for you, something that I find comforting myself. When you run into a situation (like the one that you described above) where a person (administrator or not) has done something that seems blatantly incorrect for whatever reason, don't get frustrated. It's isn't an unreasonable reaction (it's natural to think "Why did they do that?!") but it also isn't a constructive reaction. Instead, take heart in the probability that it should be easy to find a second, contradictory opinion from another person (as you did here on ANI). The more obvious the issue, the easier it should be to find someone to support your perspective. And when you seek that second opinion, try to present your case in as calm and reasonable a manner as you can; if you do so, you're likely to get a positive response much quicker without side-tracking the issue with any vitriol you're presenting. Of course, this is Wikipedia and there are no guarantees that even an obvious issue is going to get the right kind of support, but you don't need to get frustrated until you've looked elsewhere for help without success.

Again, your frustration was justified. All I'm saying is that when I end up in a situation like yours (and it happens), I try to look at it positively, because the more blatant the problem the easier it is to find support. That's how I deal with it without getting too steamed up. Just a tip. -- Atama頭 19:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right lol, I try and remember that most times. Today was just one of those days for me. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:29, 27 March 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.

Dorje Shugden Controversy

Hi, I'm having problems with an editor on the Dorje Shugden Controversy page. I have tried to improve the introduction of the article which is at the moment very one sided and certainly not WP:NPOV but although I've proposed my change on the talk page and it contains WP:RS I've had my changes reverted repeatedly by Heicth who refuses to offer constructive comments or engage in a collaborative effort to improve the article. He's stopping me from editing. What can be done please? Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Why haven't you taken up my suggestion to go to WP:DRN? Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Because Heicth has been particularly obstructive and objects to me trying to edit the article in any way even with WP:RS. I have tried to collaborate but he refuses. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and such freedom is important. Truthsayer62 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The manipulation of Wikipedia by New Kadampa cult editors is explained on the Talk:New Kadampa Tradition page and the user page of Kt66. While 3 users (Kt66, Chris Fynn and myself) were patiently discussing, agreeing and editing the article in a careful manner, Truthsayer62 deleted most of the academic material in the article. Also note the shenanigans of other New Kadampa editors. Now on the Talk:Dorje Shugden Controversy talk page, he just creates new threads to obscure previous discussion while completely lying about the nature of his edits. If this user has his own way (despite recent consensus), we will see the deletion of academic references and the use of NKT blogs as references. Heicth (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I rest my case. Heicth is uncooperative. He clearly doesn't want to improve the article. The other editors he mentions are sympathetic to his view of the controversy so of course they are going to agree. How is it possible to improve the article with alternative reliably sourced view points when one editor guards the article and refuses to allow the inclusion of material that he doesn't agree with?Truthsayer62 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing decisions operate by consensus. If the discussion is between you (1 person) and those of a different opinion (more than 1), at best, it will be a stalemate. The best thing you can do is go to the article talk page and persuasively argue why your edits are an improvement. Win other editors over with your logical argument and reliable sources. Consensus rules and if, should you gain consensus, an editor still is obstinate, the next step is dispute resolution WP:DRN, not AN/I. This isn't a forum to come to get editors you disagree to change their minds or get blocked. Content disputes get resolved on article talk pages and, should that fail, dispute resolution forums. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Liz, does it seem right that one person on one side of a controversy should aggressively protect an article from the inclusion of WP:RS that would improve the article and make it more balanced, fair and accurate? I'm not being protectionist, my edit is fair and includes both sides of the controversy, stating views that I myself do not accept. If it takes days and days of effort to make one change to a Wikipedia article because of one editor's intransigence, people will stop taking an interest in Wikipedia and the quality of the articles will suffer as a result. For one person to block change cannot be fair and to be lone voice of one side of the controversy makes getting consensus extremely difficult. The article remains biased and inaccurate while one person protects that inaccuracy. Heicth is insulting and refuses to collaborate or change the article. Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Truthsayer62, for better or worse, Wikipedia admins do not make conduct decisions on what you or I (or anyone) thinks is "right" but what WP policy and guidelines support or forbid. I agree that editors shouldn't own articles and prevent other editors from contributing but unless there is disruptive editing going on (like edit warring or personal attacks), gaining consensus for your proposed changes on the article talk page is best way to go because you'll have that support backing your change. That advice goes for any editor. If you want to push the issue further, you can launch an WP:RfC but those only tend to resolve disputes if there is a fair amount of editors participating (say, a dozen) and I'm not sure how many people are working on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, I understand. At the moment there are only really three other editors on the article, all go whom share a particular view of this controversy. What is the procedure if an individual or even a group of people are attached to their views and actively oppose changes to an article? What if consensus cannot be gained or edits are blocked? Does that mean that the article has to remain one sided? Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks once again Liz. By the way, Truthsayer62 is again lying. It is not just me opposing him. User:CFynn just addressed him on the article's talk page.Heicth (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

After Liz's comment, Truthsayer62 is now pretending to be a new user, March22nd, (same specific argument about introduction, making a big deal of how to sign, providing an edit summary for talk page comments) or brought in this fellow NKT editor. Come on Wikipedia, ban these guys like the Scientologists were banned. Even Truthsayer62 admitted there is consensus. Heicth (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Heicth - If you have good reason to believe March22nd is a sock puppet of Truthsayer62 and that these two accounts are being are being abusively operated by the same person - then you can report it to Sockpuppet investigations - but so far the new user March22nd has only made one edit - and that on an article talk page. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a false accusation. I am not March22nd. Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban Proposal

The manipulation of Wikipedia by the New Kadampa cult is explained on the user page of Kt66 (a great editor on Wikipedia). Many other editors have struggled for years with cultists like Truthsayer62 (for example see the New Kadampa Tradition page). I documented my struggles on this ANI page. If Truthsayer62 continues with his strategy of tiring out his opponents, despite Wikipedia policies on reliable sources, consensus etc., we will continue to see the deletion of academic references and the use of nonsense material. While most people view Wikipedia as an encyclopedic resource, Truthsayer62 views Wikipedia as just another NKT blog. I propose that Truthsayer62 be banned from any topic related to Dorje Shugden and the New Kadampa Tradition, which sadly seems to be his life's work according to both his user page and edit history. Heicth (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

if you are really in favour of reliably sourced material and neutral edits, why did you block my reliably sourced and neutral edit? There's nothing in the introduction of the Dorje Shugden Controversy article that explains what the controversy is because it's full of one sided information on why Dorje Shugden is a spirit. It doesn't explain the other point of view that is the other side of the controversy. Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes there are numerous problems, and have been for years, with the articles on Dorje Shugden, the Dorje Shugden controversy, and the New Kadampa Tradition. There are now quite a number of very reputable academic sources on these subjects available, and I think good balanced articles could be written relying only on such sources. However it seems these articles will inevitably be edited by zealous devotees of Dorje Shugden amd/or the NKT to bring these articles as close as they can to their own POV.

Chris Fynn (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't analyzed the article edit history, Heicth, but it seems like Truthsayer62 is saying that he can't make edits that "stick", without being reverted, so I question how much influence he has had on the articles in question. I think a topic ban at this stage is not warranted if you are reverting most of his edits. JMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I agree with Chris Fynn obviously. And the comments of Kt66 elsewhere. Heicth (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching these articles for years and edit warring, sockpuppetry and so on have been going on all that time on the Dorje Shugden, Dorje Shugden controversy, New Kadampa Tradition and several other related articles — carried on by apparent NKT and WSS members on one side, and their detractors (some probably ex-members of those organisations) on the other ~ with the occasional uninvolved but interested editor thrown in. Each side in these edit wars has their own partisan agenda and seemingly nearly infinite zeal and time to spend. Frankly to me it looks unlikely that NPOV will ever be achieved. Chris Fynn (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty pessimistic. So are you for this topic ban or not?Heicth (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

These are all false accusations making clear that Heicth is aggressive and non-cooperative. He won't accept any edit I propose as he is simply trying to ban a neutral point of view, now by trying to ban me. He has reverted every edit, including the ones I proposed on the talk page and asked for comments on. This is unreasonable. Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris Fynn already addressed your claims of "neutral point of view" on the talk page. And you are a WP:SPA, by your own admission on your user page. Neither of the "two" users, Truthsayer62 or March22nd (who are obviously linked) seem to understand Chris Fynn's post on the talk page. March22nd for example keeps pushing a primary source written by Kelsang Gyatso. And Truthsayer62 on this ANI page falsely keeps harping about "neutral". Truthsayer62's view of "neutral" is deleting academic information from Kapstein, Dreyfus and Thurman. What other behavior is necessary before someone is topic banned? Heicth (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Whether or not Truthsayer62's use of the word "libel" is actually a legal threat, it is sufficiently disruptive to be grounds for a topic ban in and of itself. If the user is not indeffed for legal threats, he should at least be topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal mumbo jumbo and deleting academic quotes (again)

Truthsayer62, a WP:SPA by his own admission on his user page, is now making definitive statements of libel, when we are simply using secondary academic sources from Bultrini and Dr. Thurman. This article is not a WP:BLP. And the Bultrini book with Thurman's foreward clearly documents Chinese involvement. Despite Chris Fynn's recent explanation on the talk page, and previous deleted warninings on his user page, Truthsayer62 once again deleted direct quotes from Dr. Thurman from 2 different pages, Dorje Shugden Controversy and Western Shugden Society. Administrator Thatcher confirmed that Truthsayer62 and 3 other accounts were "editing on the same topics from the same location" and was blocked for sockpuppeting. The manipulation of Wikipedia by the New Kadampa cult (WP:COI) is explained on the user page of Kt66 (a great editor on Wikipedia). Many other editors have struggled for years with Truthsayer62 (for example see the New Kadampa Tradition page). If Truthsayer62 continues with his strategy of fallacious arguments about libel, neutrality etc., despite Wikipedia policies on reliable sources, we will continue to see the deletion of academic references and the use of nonsense material. While most people view Wikipedia as an encyclopedic resource, Truthsayer62 views Wikipedia as just another NKT blog. Heicth (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I warned Truthsayer62 to try to avoid words like "libel" or "slander" because accusations like that could be perceived as legal threats and we usually block people who make or strongly imply a legal threat until they clarify that no litigation is planned, or threat is intended. I don't think the word "libel" was meant to be a threat, so I haven't taken any action, but I'd rather head off that kind of escalation now before it happens. -- Atama頭 15:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't mean anything by the use of that word and I didn't realise that it was serious. The truth is that Heicth doesn't like me contributing a view from the other side of the Dorje Shugden controversy and so he is doing everything he can to get me banned when it is he who is being obstructive. Truthsayer62 (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Threat from User:Salix alba in RfC

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 filed a RfC about Debian, as several people advised, even in an arbitration case request.[216]. I am already coping with users disrupting the RfC, but the administrator Salix alba, being involved in the discussion, has actually threatened to block me.

With all due respect, I do not think Salix alba deserves to be an administrator. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved non-admin, I have to suggest that, having looked at Talk:Debian and the background to this, Salix Alba's 'threat' is entirely justified - in fact I am struggling to understand why this IP has been allowed to cause so much disruption for so long. Clearly WP:NOTHERE, and clearly only interested in pursuing some personal crusade over an obscure and entirely uninteresting incident of no relevance whatsoever to any encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As another uninvolved non-admin, I would suggest that AndyTheGrump is correct in his/her evaluation. This IP has had a protracted involvement on Talk:Ukraine relating to the RfC on the depiction of Crimea on the map without ever having been involved in editing the article, or any other reason to involve themselves (other than appearing on the current RfC list?). The IP has left this comment on Guy Macon's talk page [217]; this continued pursuit of me as a bizarre attempt to manipulate me[218] after dubious advice to a user prompting the user to close a controversial RfC which actually required a neutral administrator to close it. The latest 'advice' being given is to the same user[219] to close an RfC[220], currently under discussion elsewhere, as if it were a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issue, whereas admin advice had clearly been to ask a neutral editor to close the RfC via the appropriate noticeboard.

What I'm not certain about is how many convolutions of WP:NOTHERE apply. Salix alba is not a one off target. This IP clearly some other agenda... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• With a past block and a long history of people patiently explaining the problem, it's fair to say this user has no excuse for not understanding. I have blocked the IP for a week to give everyone time to settle the idiocies created to date. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Could we also have an admin snow close of Talk:Debian#RfC: WP:NOR/WP:VERIFY - Expulsion event so that it doesn't waste anyone's time any further? Ideally, the close would include a brief comment specifying what behavior is expected from 84.127.80.114 in the future. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:24, 29 March 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.

An edit war starting

• At the end of Protei-5 Russian diver propulsion vehicle are some links to Youtube videos showing and describing the Protei-5. Those links have stood since year 2008. User:110.169.128.14, who seems to be a novice (see Special:Contributions/110.169.128.14), deleted those links yesterday; I restored them. He is continuing an edit war about this and ignored a request to discuss the matter. I feel that I should have another opinion about this. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Although edit-warring is typically reported at WP:AN/3RR, without reviewing, I'd usually agree with the IP when it comes to linking to external copyrighted sites such as youtube DP 09:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; in this case the IP is wholly in the right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

IP gunspotting

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

---

An IP user who has been warned numerous times in the past about adding links to trivial weapon appearances and was eventually blocked for persistently adding unsourced gun-related information in spite of numerous warnings is actively back at it again. In the last few days, there have been numerous such examples: [221][222][223][224][225][226][227][228][229][230][231][232][233][234][235] 2601:D:9400:5FF:88CA:4B8C:7A46:656 (talk) 06:46, 29 March 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.

Compromised account Athaenara

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

---

This is an emergency. My e-mail has been hacked by someone and now I cannot log into my Wikipedia admin account User:Athaenara either. I suspect that they are methodically changing the passwords on every site connected to my e-mail account. They haven't edited yet on en.wiki but I request an admin to temporarily (hopefully) block my account while I resolve this. – AthaenaraEmergencyAccount (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Investigating. LFaraone 14:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that an additional account was created for this purpose. An anon post with a request to revdel would've made more sense. I'm interested to know the conclusion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Harassment from admin/editors

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

---

Hello, I'm writing to get something done about this harassment from Admins on this factual and encyclopedic site. The admins in question are Kansas Bear and Favonian on Francis II, Duke of Lorraine, Christina de Salm, and Charles de Valois. As well as an editor named DeCausa on Mahdi ...They have been vandalizing my work and even going as far to harass me. Why don't the Admins, especially the Admins, read the talk page, before making an edit?Wnicholas70 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please notify the other editors and provide links/diffs to the abusive behaviors. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Wnicholas70 (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Wnicholas has edit warred[236][237][238][239], and logging out to continue edit warring[240][241][242], simply to include his/her opinions into Mahdi, Francis II, Duke of Lorraine, Christina of Salm, and Charles de Valois.

"When asked to provide reliable sources, Wnicholas links to some website[243] that makes no mention concerning the 3 individuals. Wnicholas, who uses edit summaries to tell other editors that "wiki-trees", ancestry.com and geni.com are reliable sources,[244] also has thrown a few personal attacks around:

"Hi, obviously you do care who I am related to if your supporting this vandalism from a bunch of commies and following the rules is what got me here"[245]

"Hello, Yes I am being harassed by Favonian, WHY DON'T THE ADMINS READ THE TALK PAGE? Here's what he said;"Postulated relationships do not constitute reliable sources"...Leonard de Lorraine is on wikitrees...how is that postulated? He's also vandalized Charles de Valois, something about "dodgy edits"... I believe he's tripping as I got these edits from ancestry.com and the French Wikipedia...we need to take Danish Admins out of this equation"[246]

"P.S. the Mahdi page is being vandalized as well...he had this to say:DeCausa"[247]

When told on Francis II, Duke of Lorraine's talk page, the "source" makes not mention of the individuals in question, Wnicholas answer is some snide remark, "Your asking me for lyrics to Nirvana's "On a plain"...? I could say Silent Lucidity, Queensryche"[248], repeating snide remark again on Christina of Salm's talk page.[249]

It is quite clear this editor is not here to build a community encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My experience of him is on Mahdi. Edit warring yes, but the posts on the article talk page, the edit summaries and the bizarre citations are just plain weird. I don't know what he's here for but from what I've seen it's some sort of WP:COMPETENCE issue. If it was just on the Mahdi article I wouldn't have been that bothered but if he's doing weird stuff in a number of places it probably does need admin attention. DeCausa (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I should have added some diffs. Anyone interested need only look at the bottom of the article talk page to get the flavour, plus this example edit (I.e. the link that he's citing - apparently page 29 - and the text it supposedly supports) DeCausa (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I have read the above....snide would be my stone. My reputation proceeds meWnicholas70 (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note that your edits claiming that Muqtada al-Sadr claims he is the Islamic Mahdi (most recently here, but also repeatly in the Mahdi article) is unsourced and is a violation of WP:BLP. The "Mahdi" in the title of his organisation, Mahdi army, is not a reference to him, as explained in the Mahdi army article. DeCausa (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

His name is Muqtada not Mahdi.... one must read page entitled Promised day Brigade, they come first. No, I did not log off to make changes as mentioned by Kansas Bear, in hurry sometimes and forget to log-in. I have read the above....Wnicholas70 (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Wnicholas70, I don't know what point you are trying to make. Muqtada al-Sadr is a Twelver Shia which means he believes that Muhammad al-Mahdi is the Mahdi. That's who the Mahdi army is named for. Neither he nor his supporters would consider Muqtada al-Sadr to be the Mahdi. DeCausa (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My experience with this editor, Wnicholas70 (Nicholas), began on Talk:Charles, Count of Valois where he self identified that Charles, Count of Valois was an ancestor. I suggested that Wnicholas70 read WP:COI and use {{request edit}} to request edits. Shortly thereafter Nicholas made edits to my user page as both Wnicholas70 and 208.87.232.180 (this IP appears to have been used by Nicholas over at least a period of days – nothing wrong with that, I am merely identifying them as probably his edits). I assumed that putting the text on my user page instead of user talk was merely due to inexperience or mistake and moved the comments to my talk page. In those comments, Wnicholas70 identified that his current desire on Wikipedia is "updating my 2 royal lineages". The text in these edits identifies multiple people as his ancestors. Thus, the pages about those people are ones on which Nicholas has a WP:COI.

The only page of those he is actively editing which I am currently watching is Charles, Count of Valois. As a result, my primary experience of him is on that page (other than my User and User talk pages). Nicholas has not used the Wikipedia:Edit requests process on Charles, Count of Valois even though it has been suggested that he read and follow that procedure. His edits on the article and article talk pages are:

Charles, Count of Valois:

• He placed his edits (15:48, 21 March 2014) on the Charles, Count of Valois page. In the process he removed a considerable amount of content. Those edits were reverted (17:12, 21 March 2014) by Wikipelli, which was stated as reverted because of the removal of content.
• He then made similar edits (20:34, 21 March 2014) without the significant removal of content which were reverted by ClueBot NG.
• Then he made similar edits(21:12, 25 March 2014) (including some content removal), which were reverted (21:06, 27 March 2014) by Favonian.
• He then re-reverted (16:46, 29 March 2014), and was reverted (16:48, 29 March 2014) by Kansas Bear
• He then re-reverted (16:53, 29 March 2014), and was reverted (19:39, 29 March 2014) by Makyen (myself).
• The last three edits/re-reverts have included the removal of some content. It is not clear to me if this is intentional, or by mistake. The edit he made which was reverted by ClueBot NG did not include the removal of that content.

Talk:Charles, Count of Valois:

• Effectively blanked the talk page (15:22, 27 March 2014), reverted (16:54, 27 March 2014) by Favonian
• Effectively blanked the talk page (20:28, 29 March 2014), reverted (21:54, 29 March 2014) by Makyen (myself)

Based on Nicholas' own statements he has a WP:COI on various articles which he is editing due to his ancestry the articles being about the named individuals he has stated are his ancestors. I would suggest that he follow the procedures at the various links already provided to him for edit requests. — Makyen (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC); clarify intended use of "ancestry" 01:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Just as a point, and not addressing any of the other issues pro or con: since when do we declare someone to have a COI based on their ancestry? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

When by "ancestry" the editor means "named individual the editor is (or claims to be) descended from or related to". I could be in COI if I were to edit an article about an ancestor of mine, especially a fairly recent and controversial one. --NellieBly (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't let this drift into a tangential discussion about COI and ancestry. This content of this user's posts are eratic and display WP:COMPETENCE issues.DeCausa (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the descendants of Charles de Valois run into the millions. Many - perhaps even most - of those reading this will be his descendants. So I don't think it can be a valid conflict of interest - nor any sort of justification for Nicholas' egregious behaviour. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears that there may be some desire to continue a discussion regarding WP:COI in general. Shall we take it to WT:COI?

In the hope that it will result in no need to continue a generic discussion about WP:COI, I will state a bit more here. I don't believe that, in the vast majority of cases, the mere fact that someone is physically the descendant of some named individual is immediate cause for it being a WP:COI for that editor to edit an article about said named ancestor. Taking Wnicholas70's actions and statements as a whole, he has a WP:COI with respect to these articles due to his relationship to the named individuals taking precedence, for him, over his role as a Wikipedian.

If anyone feels we should continue a general conversation about WP:COI, please start a thread on a more appropriate page (e.g. WT:COI, or the talk page(s) of specific article(s) ). If you feel I should participate, please {{ping}} me. — Makyen (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please, can an admin take a look at Wnicholas70's contribs and esp. talk page posts asap. DeCausa (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I deeply regret having previously blocked this editor for a mere 31 hours rather than indefinitely. All that keeps me from pulling the plug now is the possibility that someone will declare me involved. Seriously, this person is definitely WP:NOTHERE. Take for instance this recent talk page comment, in which they again make peculiar claims to relationships going back a two-digit number of generations. A slightly older comment at DRN indicates either a disturbed person or troll. Favonian (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for a week after again blanking Talk:Charles, Count of Valois and told that the next one likely to be indefinite. Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Beat me to it by a minute or two – and I would have gone for indef right away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, probably I should have. I'm too nice. But one more edit out of line and indef. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If he comes back, that's going to be inevitable. There's one of Favonian's descriptions of Wnicholas90 at the end of his post above which, unfortunately, appears to be the case. DeCausa (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I now think I made a mistake, given his responses to my block. If he carries on this way we should just extend the block. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

And after some further incoherent rambling on his talk page (really, if anyone can make sense of it, they're a smarter man than I, Gunga Din) an indef has (well deservedly, I say) fallen. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 30 March 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.

List of Presidents of Bangladesh

Hello. As can be seen, the List of Presidents of Bangladesh article is for some time now a target for persistent IP vandalism, additions of incorrect data, etc (including additions by a newly-registered user). I'm asking admins for help to finally put an end to this kind of behavior on this article. I also asked for semi-protection at WP:RPP. --Sundostund (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is protected since 05:30, 30 March 2014. Hopefully, that will put an end IP vandalism, etc... --Sundostund (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits by User:44thPresidentOfUSA

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:44thPresidentOfUSA has created an article (Ford Shelby CV525) about a vehicle that does not exist and the only references is a fake forum discussion (the user pretends he's Motor Trend) set up a couple of days ago and a Facebook page with a bad Photoshop job. This user is likely one of the many socks of User:Altimgamr. I did a WP:PROD but the user deleted it. Not sure how to get this article removed and the user blocked. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted this article and warned the editor. Thanks for bringing it here. --John (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

They were publishing their password on their user page. I revdel'ed it, verified it was the real password (ask a CU if you want verification, I consent to having myself checked anytime), then indef blocked with no talk page or email access. Not only are they not here to build an encyclopedia, but obviously here to do damage. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

See also Nissan Maxima (talk · contribs), already blocked. There's at least one other that smells, SPI being opened. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You can add User:Abcdefghijkaa , I nailed that one patrolling the user creation log. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I blocked Nissan Maxima and salted the fake article. --John (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

And CindamuseBot. I will keep patrolling the creation log for a bit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 29 March 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.

Bizarre impersonation of me

In this diff, an IP editor (who has at least a couple of IP addresses), insists that he is me, and for some reason takes a bizarre fascination with the tags on an article about my brother. I believe I will stop reverting him and let others decide what to do about it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

German IP blocked for impersonation and personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've also semi-protected the article. Acroterion (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:The Banner appears to be trying to cause a policy change through precedent

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

See generally Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 27, where The Banner has separately nominated some twenty template redirects to various WikiProject templates with virtually identical rationales. This is the culmination of several recent RfDs (e.g., Template:wprk, which closed as keep) where The Banner has campaigned for the deletion of WikiProject template redirects on grounds that do not reflect community consensus. While I have no objection to the initial RfDs being brought, this latest move seems akin to making a rule change through an adjudicative process—that is, causing us to adopt a de facto rule by gradually removing all cases where such rule would be clearly incorrect. I do not mean to assign a malicious intent to this move—I believe The Banner is acting in good faith—but this is simply inappropriate. If The Banner wants to clarify policy in the manner he claims is correct, he should be doing it via a broadly announced RfC. I request an administrator to speedily close the RfDs so such an RfC may be started by The Banner. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I have notified The Banner, but please note that The Banner is presently blocked for another incident. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

This obviously runs the assumption that there should be, at the least, an RFC. Mendaliv has not explained why this 'de facto rule' that is apparently in the making would be 'simply inappropriate'. Is he suggesting that the people who comment at these RfD's don't have the capacity to think for themselves? A 'de facto rule' is not a policy and nobody's expected to abide by it. — Lfdder (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• If, indeed, "policy is what we do", this course of action is not, on its face. inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If he's not interested in suggesting a policy change, why should he be forced to? Is there a policy for it, perhaps? Also, I don't think speedy-keeping the nominated redirects for this reason is very sensible. Most commenters in support of deletion do not even necessarily share the nominator's sentiment; they seem to agree with User:Frietjes that the redirects are 'confusing'. — Lfdder (talk) 02:54, 30 March 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:Mendaliv has now commented on many of these w/

Speedy keep Frivolous, POINTy nomination. Start an RfC if you want to codify an alleged consensus that these sorts of template redirects don't belong. I have individually reviewed this specific case and disagree that there are any independent reasons for deleting it apart from The Banner's spurious claim that WikiProject templates should be held to the same standards as articlespace redirects.

or some similar variation. User:The Banner's rationale for that particular one (Template:C&w) is "Useless redirect that points to WikiProject Country Music. Redirects are cheap, but should not be used as grass seed to make as many redirects with as few letters as possible". I don't see where this alleged consensus Mendaliv alludes to is to be found there. The Banner seems to be expressing little more than his own opinion. Given Mendaliv's fascination with urging people to to follow some bureaucratic process or another ([250], [251]), I suggest that he's advised to exercise some moderation. — Lfdder (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible conflict between WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS

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

---

Earlier today, Binksternet and I engaged in an edit war on the Syngenta article. We ended up reporting each other on the Edit War board. But this post isn't about the purported Edit War itself; instead, I believe that we have uncovered a possible conflict between the WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS guidelines. Based on the guidelines I honestly believe we both had at least some justification for our edits.

Essentially, the argument is over the use of a publicly available primary source - Syngenta's response to allegations made by scientist Tyrone Hayes that Syngenta threatened and attempted to intimidate him. Hayes' allegations were aired in The New Yorker and Democracy Now. Neither news organization contacted Syngenta to ask for its response, and since the allegations aired, a number of outlets - primarily those I would characterize as fringe or environmental activist, but also some mainstream sources - have repeated those allegations or published follow-ups heavily favoring Hayes. Syngenta, by contrast, has been given little chance to respond: so far I have only found two articles - one on Forbes.com and one on another site I cannot recall at the moment - that discussed Syngenta's public response.

The WP:BALANCE guideline states that "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence". The WP:BALASPS guideline states that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". The first guideline would seem to support Binksternet in removing most references or citations regarding Syngenta's response, since Syngenta's response has had very little if any valid media airtime. But WP:BALASPS would seem to support the necessity of its inclusion, as Syngenta's response in this matter would seem a critical point to make on the page where Syngenta is the primary subject. Regardless of whether I'm considered guilty of edit warring, I would be interested in the admins' take on this subject and what modifications, if any, should be made to the guidelines. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you that admins, qua admins, don't ever have any opinions on any content disputes at all. Which is odd and sometimes inconvenient, but that's just how it is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Heh, that's fair! But, it still may fit within their remit if this example necessitates a change in the guidelines. In the meantime I could use any experts' weigh-in, as the two I've spoken with so far on the matter are divided. Might be better to do so on my Talk page? Jtrevor99 (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

All editors may suggest guideline changes on the talkpages of said guidelines DP 08:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. And feel free to raise the issue at WP:VPP if you need more feedback. Perhaps just as significant, you're not even talking about multiple guidelines here. Just different sections of the same guideline, or actually policy. So yes, if you believe the policy contradicts itself, feel free to address this in the talk page of said policy i.e. Wikipedia talk:NPOV. Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Looks like WP:VPP and the policy Talk pages are the best courses of action. Admittedly this is an unusual situation. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Started discussion on the Neutral POV Talk page regarding this subject. We'll see where it goes. Thanks for your help; feel free to mark this as "closed". Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:12, 30 March 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.

Further threats and personal attacks from 216.189.170.139 after coming off 72 hour block

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.

---

216.189.170.139 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

The background is in the now closed section above. Immediately after coming off his 72 hour block and removal of his talk page access by Ohnoitsjamie, this user was back on his talk page today with further serious personal attacks and threats against a named editor and general implied legal threats, threats of off-wiki retaliation, and threats of socking: [252], [253]. Voceditenore (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Other relevant accounts are:

• Middleamericajames (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 72.28.133.36 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Note this edit by Middleamericajames at the AfC Help desk, where he identifies as Matthew Berdyck, whom 216.189.170.139 also claims to be, although both deny that they are the same person. Middleamericajames (perhaps realizing he was logged in?) then immediately reverted himself. 72.28.133.36 claims to a friend of 216.189.170.139. Voceditenore (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that was extremely amusing lol, I'm not sure this person should be left on their own without supervision. I find it funny that he thinks I'm on blogger sites trashing him and his film lol. For the record and I'm sure most other reasonable editors or people who know me will know for sure I do not need or want to target a non notable film or film maker and I have nothing to do with it. Frankly I don't care about the movie, the person. I just hate the behaviors of people trying to promote their agenda here. In the meantime, good luck when you're unblocked feel free to leave amusing and creative attacks at User talk:Hell in a Bucket, unoriginal and or boring attacks will be reverted. i'd remind them that if they are right and they are famous as they claim it's not my behavior that will be noticed but theirs. So they can act like mature responsible adults or they can continue to act in an elementary mindset and take their ball and go home. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket, I know it's really annoying to be on the receiving end of his accusations and threats, but the best tactic on his talk page, and probably here as well, is to avoid feeding his desire for attention and his desire to be seen as a victim. I brought this here, hoping that an administrator could re-block him and remove his talk page access again for at least two weeks. He needs to be taken out of his (self-created) limelight and then simply ignored. Engagement with his preposterous assertions just encourages him to make more of them and draw yet more attention to himself. Voceditenore (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not actually frustrated or annoyed, I wasn't lying when I said I find this mildly amusing because it is so far offbase it is rather comical. I think however you have a great point and best would be to WP:DENY at this point. What do you suggest. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Not much, except to refrain from engaging with him on his talk page or anywhere else on WP. As I said, the IP needs to be re-blocked and have talk page access removed by an administrator and then kept on watch. Postings from obvious socks should simply be reverted. I didn't take this to SPI because they won't link IPs to an account, i.e. Middleamericajames. But I think it's pretty obvious here what's going on. Voceditenore (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I can deal with those pickles! I'll step back and watch. Eventually they will go away. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Block extended to three weeks with removal of talk page access. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ohnoitsjamie. I'm wondering if the 2 IPs' talk pages should be blanked except for the current block notices. There are both pros and cons for this, but it might help dampen the drama. Besides, I pity the next (non-related) person who uses those IPs. Lord knows what they'll think. Voceditenore (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

When the block expires sure. Other than that who cares if it stays I certainly don't and I seem to be their favorite target at the moment. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:15, 30 March 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.

Toondisney Fan

I’m sorry, I don't need this, I've also try explaining to the user, I've had to drag to get details out of the user. I have also asked others for opinion on the BBC One for help and it’s NOT forthcoming, so no... I need an admin to explain how things work to the user. I don't believe the reasons he's given are proper reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BBC_One On this page aswell you will see he's been told off doing splits etc by others already and still he does not listen. If you read said talk page you will see the other problems. His talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TDFan2006&oldid=601794250 makes no since either. I think this is just a wind up. I hope it not and he just a very unexperienced editor who needs to learn fast. I just don’t need to deal with this. --Crazyseiko (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

With all respect you've not helped him whatsoever, You've simply had a go at him over it & continued to show us your caps lock are functioning which is disruptive in itself, Pointing the user in the right direction is more far appropriate and helpful than coming here about it, We want new editors .... Not less!, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I cant explain these things to help him and its clear no one else want to either. This is why I asked... --Crazyseiko (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Crazyseiko, Davey2010, please also note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FanforClarl. This is a pending case. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh ...... Thanks for the notification. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. --Crazyseiko (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Massive edit - propaganda use

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 wanted to make some minor edits by adding new sources on this article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Georgian_war&offset=&limit=500&action=history and then I noticed some massive edits by a single user user:UA Victory during the last couple of days. It seems to me that it's politically motivated. I don't have enough time for Wikipedia but probably somebody can have a look at it. I've undone everything since the 17. march. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrant (talk • contribs) 16:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The article was too long. I also discovered some factual inaccuracies and dead links, so I began to work on the article. There were too many details which were moved to corresponding main articles. I also manually did fact-checking by sources and corrected inaccuracies. I tagged dead links. What's wrong with it? If my edits were disruptive, then I wouldn't have been awarded the Original Barnstar. --UA Victory (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

See that big orange box up top? "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." Please remember to do that next time. Checking a few of UA Victory's edits showed they were helpful. Please outline your content concerns on the article's talk page. —NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

UA Victory has helped condense the article, as it was much too long before. In fact, that is why I removed the previous "condense" boilerplate. He has been very meticulous, and I think Wikipedia should appreciate his efforts. RGloucester — ☎ 16:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Requesting some eyes/support at Robert Hurst (musician)

In the past few weeks, Robert Hurst (musician) has been heavily edited by a party who appears to have some conflict of interest, possibly someone associated with or who works for Hurst. A couple of weeks ago, User: Entre-SLAM dramatically expanded the article, and I did a blanket revert owing to concerns over WP:PROMO and WP:POV. Entre-SLAM restored all of the material, attracting the notice of at least one other editor concerned over content changes. I made a more measured, partial excision of the most egregious adverty material. A few days later this was followed by the addition of a personal essay ostensibly written by Mr. Hurst, again posted by Entre-SLAM. I reverted the personal essay and left a note for the user on his talk page. There was no reply (though I didn't ask for one, but certainly there was no indication that he took anything I said in the message seriously). Entre-SLAM's next edits to the page copied and pasted material from elsewhere on the internet, which I immediately removed as a copyright violation. I left another, more urgent message on SLAM's talk page, which also received no reply. His most recent move was to gut the article of all prose biographical material entirely because it's "incorrect" (even though the material is provided with references).

I'm not asking for him to be banned or anything; he's new and probably doesn't know WP:ADVERT from a hole in the ground. But I can't get through to him alone, and I'd like to have a few more eyes watching the page and reverting the plainly unhelpful changes he may make in the future, and maybe a nudge from someone with more clout than me. Chubbles (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)