Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive811

Edit warring on Jesus

God knows that this article has had trouble enough as is, but there is now a bit of an edit war going on as per here. I find it very hard to imagine many would consider me neutral, which is why I won't step in, but I think it would help if someone did something fairly quickly. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's our friend in the section above, of course. Note that this part of the lede has been discussed at length, and that the edits [1] nonsensically leave the header asking the reader not to change the wording of the sentence that they delete. Paul B (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What's going on with User:198.161.203.6? User:Greengrounds last edited at 21:13 6 September (UTC) and at 21:50 UTC 198.161.203.6 started reverting contributions by two users that Greengrounds has come into conflict with. Looks to me like he's logged out and done some poorly disguised harassment... --Akhilleus (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Major borderline insane reversions of content from Smeat and Ozhistory as shown here, and that IP is already a recognized sockpuppet account. I'm not a checkuser, but I think there is really good grounds for assuming sockpuppetry here. John Carter (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The IP belongs to a public library, so I think the previous sockpuppetry is immaterial. The connection to Greengrounds is apparent, though, and I would have already blocked if I weren't involved in some of these articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

And now he's reverted me on Historical Jesus... --Akhilleus (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

And this edit by Greengrounds in his account pretty much, in my eyes, is more than sufficient for a short term block, and probably a topic ban. John Carter (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

And told Akhilleus to go to hell on Akhilleus' user talk page here. A block is now definitely called for. John Carter (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours based on the edits above and subsequent grossly unacceptable behavior here. Others are free to review the block, of course. John Carter (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate block. I was preparing to do the same until you beat me to it. Resolute 23:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Am I missing something on the Historical Jesus article? It seems like people are edit warring over a line break with edit comments about representation of sourcing, or are people just having fun? I can't help but feel I'm missing something on the last five edits to that article. Canterbury Tail talk 01:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's related to [2], where Greengrounds indicated he was going to make a reversion to the first sentence of the article. I responded on the talk page [3], but (embarassingly) didn't notice that Greengrounds didn't make the change he said he was going to, but only altered a line break. Whoops!

Anyway, Greengrounds is indeffed now, so this problem is solved. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to re-bring this one up. I do find it worrying that you got so involved with this user that you ended up blindly reverting their edits without even checking to see what they were, and then reverted the IP logged out user again blindly. That speaks to a blinkered battleground mentality there and I find it a little concerning that you could perform such reverts without even looking at what they were and just assuming the user was up to no good. It's made even worse when you say to the user in question in the talk item you link above "Have you read them? Or are you just reverting blindly?" In that you accuse the other editor of just reverting blindly and then go on in your very next edit to revert blindly. I'm concerned here. (note I have no issues with the blocks, they're good and justified, just a little concerned with your own editing in this matter which is not exactly stellar.) Canterbury Tail talk 16:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why users like this seek to debate the historicity of Jesus in the Jesus article when we have a separate Historicity of Jesus article. I'm actually kind of sympathetic to these POV-pushers, in a way. I know they're wrong, but I was right there with them until I got to college and started studying it. I'm pretty sure the reason people insist that a historical Jesus never existed is because no one has ever bothered to give them a rational explanation. In my experience 99.999% of people who insist Jesus existed historically are not themselves historians, but are doing so based on their own religious biases. I'm actually impressed that the Jesus article can get away with citing Ehrman as the source for the statement that Jesus almost certainly existed, given this fact. Kudos! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Crap. I hit "Save page" before remembering to include my final remark. FTR, I'm with the American and German scholarly consensus on this. Jesus existed historically, but he was not the same as the Jesus of Christian confession. I just think that Christian fundamentalists need to stop misrepresenting what secular historians say as "See? Scholars agree with us!" Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, since you've got some background knowledge on the topic maybe you can come over to these articles and suggest some changes. The editors who work on these articles are, by and large, not fundamentalists, and are quite aware of the American and German scholarship that tells us the Jesus of history is different from the Jesus of faith--the sentence in Jesus reads "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed, although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and their assertions of his divinity." (And there's way more detail in historical Jesus.) So I wouldn't agree that on Wikipedia fundamentalists are saying that secular historians say "See? Scholars agree with us!" but there's a constant flow of editors who come in and loudly insist that the articles are dominated by Christian ideologues... --Akhilleus (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean to say the Wikipedians who monitor the main Jesus article and so on are fundamentalists. I meant that IPs mostly based in the American deep south run rampant on articles in this area, and sometimes they don't get reverted. I'd hardly consider Saint Peter a peripheral article in the area, but when I tried to point out that virtually no secular scholars consider either of the two Petrine epistles to be genuine, my edit was very quickly compromised to say "some scholars reject the Petrine authorship of these epistles". They even had the gall to leave my source intact, meaning they were essentially committing a BLP violation by also claiming that this is what Dale Martin (professor at Yale) says. When I then tried to revert this somewhat farcical move, an established Wikipedian accused me of something problematic. That on top of what happened to me on Talk:Veneration of Mary in Roman Catholicism, where I questioned what seemed like a very inappropriate use of Bible quotes -- primary sources -- as references, and was immediately accused, again by an established Wikipedian, of being "one of those who think it's all based on the worship of Isis". I'm not interested in engaging in a broader campaign to clean up Wikipedia articles on Christian topics. It's a minefield/jungle out there, and I'll venture in to do some XP-grinding when I feel like it, but no more than that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Fish and karate possibly compromised

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 sysop Fish and karate (talk · contribs) was inactive between August 2012 and August 2013. In August 2013, they made the following edits which seem completely different than anything they (or any admin) would normally do:

• [4]
• [5]

I'm not sure what to make of these, but I don't think we can discount the possibility that the account is compromised. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's see if Fish and karate responds here and/or makes any edits after being given notice of this discussion. That may give a good indication of what is going on. Singularity42 (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that F&K is (or at least was) in the UK, which would make the edits mid-morning, in case anyone was thinking WP:EUI. Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In all honestly, I don't think it points to the account being compromised, it looks more like someone typing a reply by phone or another device (based on the change in their capitalization tendencies and his lack of time spent editing). If you look at the replies they made they sort of make sense. One reply was to a image deletion notice, and he asked why was it deleted, it was a free image taken from his phone. While the second reply seems weird, it was in response to a recent notice that they were going to be desysopped if they do not make an edit, hence he says "wheeee look I make the edit." (it's widely known that a single edit per year means you get to keep your sysop bit if you're inactive). Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can't find a single other contribution of his where he talks like he does in those two, and his comment about the deletion sounds like something a new user would post, but I suppose there's always the chance. Also, can another admin post when the image in question was uploaded, or if he has any other deleted contributions since August 2011 that seem off? Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see why you find the edits concerning, Jack. He made an edit to prevent his administrative privileges being suspended. It was a bit facetious, but so what? The picture issue made sense to me. He uploaded the picture in 2005 and said it was a picture his sister made who ostensibly transferred any copyright to him. For the recent edit to be compromised, you'd have to assume there was something wrong with him in 2005. My guess is he's no longer very happy with Wikipedia (he hasn't edited much in many, many years), but doesn't feel like losing his rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It just sounds a lot less professional than I expect from his writing. I might just be paranoid, though. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's an oddity, really. If compromised, the user knows enough to use the four tildes to sign, but you would have thought they'd at least have tried to use the admin buttons. But no - so, as said above, not worth acting on at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Prestigiouzman

Straight off a block for editwarring Prestigiouzman (talk · contribs) continues[6][7][8] to insert a quote from Laurence Gardner that he claims is from George Rawlinson into articles after it has been clearly explained to him that it is from fringe writer Laurence Gardner. See here for the sourc, it is clearly not Rawlinson.[9] Also continued attacks on editors claiming censorship, trolling on his talk page and elsewhere, eg "it seems yis are startin te choke up a bit boys,and im just gettin warmed up ye see-" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Celts. Sorry this is short, got to catch a train to London for a huge barbecuse festival! Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

would you mind telling us what knowledge you have of the Righdamhna to feel you have the authority to redirect the entire page--Prestigiouzman (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Not only did Prestigiouzman return to making exactly the same edits the instant his block had expired, he left a message on my talk page at 4.25 this morning, "Wakey Wakey" to let me know he was doing it. He doesn't just want to get his nonsense inserted into various pages it doesn't belong, he wants to edit war. The problem with his source, a bit of ludicrous pseudohistory, and his misinterpretation of it has been pointed out to him repeatedly, and I don't believe he is so stupid he can't read his own source. He is a very determined troll, and short-term blocks only encourage him. He needs banned permanently. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have given you ground on this already, now you are redirecting entire pages, and undoing genetic highlights on the Irish people page, can you please explain why you are doing this--Prestigiouzman (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Your "genetic highlights", like the one did on Irish people are far too vague to be useful. You should know that Wikipedia can not act as source for Wikipedia, still your are using luxurious words as "censorship" over the removals. I am not aware that I have seen editors with two warnings for editwarrring on two different articles in avout two hours. The Banner talk 09:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I redirected the page as it was just a short dictionary definition of a term within Tanistry. There was no need for a separate article. The article on tanistry should be developed instead. Have a look at a couple of things on its talk page for ideas for development, like for instance is it true that only males were entitled to be chosen? - I'd like to see a citation for that. And another person has commented on that the term has been applied to similar customs elsewhere so probably the article should be made more general. If the article gets to some reasonable size then would be time to start splitting it up into logical sections.

And as to some other changes you allude to above linking Irish people and some people in India - being certain about a thing is not good enough if other people don't think so. What is needed is citations. Your ideas about associations is not good enough and comes under WP:Original research. Dmcq (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have become peripherally involved in this. What I see may be slightly different from what you all see so far, so I have left this message on the editor's talk page in the hope that they may start to understand the issues and how to work here. I see boundless enthusiasm and expertise and frustration at the brick wall of Wikipedia's ways from a new editor. I hope what I see is correct and acknowledge that it may not be. I'm hoping we have a case of frustrated expertise, hence my suggestion of their reading WP:ACADEME. Fiddle Faddle 10:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I realise that future editing behaviour must bear this out. The editor has made wise replies on his own talk page. I have hopes that this is likely to be sorted out and become the simple hurly burly of collegiate editing from now on. Fiddle Faddle 10:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. Meanwhile as he has been ignoring 3RR straight after a block for editwarring I've reported him again. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Shouting and roaring about censorship in not a good way to start. The classic "What? Why?" works far better... The Banner talk 17:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it disappointing when one tries hard to make the challenging new editor feel welcome and they immediately let you down. No-one can accuse us of not trying. 91.84.97.240 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The editor is now blocked one week per the report at AN3 as explained at User talk:Prestigiouzman#Edit warring at Irish people. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Khoka420

How this normal user can change the protection settings like that? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=+Khoka420&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=

- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 08:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• He didn't change them. They simply moved from the old name of the article to the new one. Black Kite (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Enkyo2 making everything personal and being completely incoherent

I have started two ANI threads on Enkyo in the last few weeks. The first had 3 participants other than me, of whom one agreed with me on the substance, one asked for more info, and one dismissed my concern and closed the thread before I had a response to give the second their answer. The second saw the previous closer return and continue to dismiss my concerns despite an abundance of evidence, despite four other editors either agreeing with me or requesting that user to at least listen to me. It ended by getting archived with no result. I decided to take some of Rjanag's flawed advice and take one of my issues with Enkyo to RSN. In this case my concern was his misrepresentation of very old, primary sources, some of which are in neither English nor Japanese and can't easily be checked by other users.[10] Enkyo then came along and posted a 700-word rant that had almost no relation to the topic of my post, was largely composed in incoherent moon-speak, and made numerous assumptions of bad faith against me.[11] The thread immediately went into TLDR territory, so I can't see it getting resolved there now, but this most recent post proves my earlier complaint that Enkyo needs to start discussing things in plain English (i.e., discussing things coherently). Could someone please help me with this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

When I read AN/I threads that start "I've raised two threads here in recent weeks..." my heart sinks, because the inference I draw is that having failed to get the desired result twice over, a third equally unproductive thread is going to result. Hijiri, you plead for administrative help: what admin tools or action would you like to see deployed here? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This topic isn't sexy, and so while all but one participant agreed with me the threads got archived before anything was done. That one participant mistakenly assumed this was about content and sourcing rather than user behaviour. I decided to let ANI go for a while, and took one of the issues (which by itself was not a user issue) to RSN. Enkyo immediately proved that one participant wrong, by posting a very long, incomprehensible and completely off-topic rant. My first thread was closed because I had used bad wording: I wanted Enkyo to speak coherently on talk pages (i.e., use plain English) and some other users misinterpreted me as complaining that he was speaking a language other than English. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I want an admin (i.e., someone Enkyo can't just dismiss as a troll or a POV-pusher) to tell Enkyo the same thing I (and numerous others before me) have: discuss issues like this coherently and stop misrepresenting sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This new thread is a pretext in a pattern which is not easy to parse neatly -- see here and here. At the same time, Hijiri88 continues "framing" a difficult-to-understand conflict, e.g.,

• revenge? -- see here? and here?
• grudge? -- see here?

This needs to stop.

Perhaps the fact that this is a pretext needs to be made explicit? I only hope that the mere act of naming it may diminish its power to cause harm. This targeting pattern does not help our wiki-project. --Enkyo2 (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I had been really hoping this wouldn't happen again, and I know that Enkyo2 has useful things they could contribute...but this is the exact same behavior that has lead to this editor being sanction in the past. In 2009, Enkyo2 (then editing under the name User: Tenmei) was topic banned and mandated to edit under guidance of a mentor, a process which was never very successful (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty#Tenmei and dispute resolution, and the first four Remedies). In 2011, as a result of Tenmei's editing in Senkaku Islands and related articles, Tenmei was topic banned from the subject indefinitely, banned for one year, and "advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors." (see the first three remedies for the case). The statement above, which Enkyo2 also put on his talk page in a response to the OP, is the exact same style that has been a problem for Enkyo2, seemingly throughout his entire Wikipedia career. Perhaps one of the most irritating aspects (at least for more), is the attempt to "illustrate" disputes with graphics, as you can see in User Talk:Enkyo2#Enkyo PLEASE be coherent and stop making unrelated rants on talk pages. I honestly cannot figure out why Enkyo2 writes this way, and I do believe he is sincerely trying to communicate...but the result is invariably the opposite. Sadly...I'm simply not sure that there is a place for Enkyo2 in Wikipedia, which simply requires the ability to collaborate with other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a precedent for like a topic ban on "Off-topic or difficult to understand talk page comments"? I have been saying throughout the same thing as you -- Enkyo is a good-faith user who makes a lot of decent edits. But even if all of his content edits were flawless, he needs to be able to communicate with other editors, because some of us have been editing the same area longer than him, and Wikipedia is a collaborative project. I still think he can improve, but he needs motivation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Since Enkyo2 started this little campaign against me he's barely gone more that 30 hours without editing Wikipedia, but following Qwyrxian's above post he's been out of action for 2 days. This seems very odd given that Qwyrxian appears to be advocating some kind of indefinite block or otherwise much harsher than what I'm asking for. I'd be willing to guess he's waiting for this ANI thread to get archived with no action again. Honestly what I want is a topic ban on "use of translations of pre-modern Japanese works as sources for factual statements". It's a bit of a silly TBAN, because in reality all Wikipedians are supposed to be banned from this kind of activity (misuse of primary sources essentially qualifies as OR), but since Enkyo doesn't seem to know it's not allowed, and since he has been getting away with it for so long and in so many articles (it's probably in the hundreds), it seems appropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Enkyo, you've pasted the same reply above as appears in at least two other places. Copypasting makes it look as if you can't be bothered to address the actual question being asked. Would you leave the question of Hijiri's motivation aside for one moment and consider whether your communication style is optimal? Several editors seem to agree that it isn't. Can you see why this might be? Would you be able to change anything about it? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So...is this silence an indication that editors have to go back to Arbcom and have Enkyo2 banned there a third time in order to get anything done? I don't understand why a user who's twice been admonished and/or banned for the same behavior deserves any more chances, and I don't understand why the community wouldn't act on this.

I have to say, I'm really sorry about this because, deep down, in all honesty, I strongly suspect that Enkyo2 is probably a genius. Enkyo2 shows a scholarly commitment to deep research, a wide range of knowledge, at least some amount of ability to speak/read multiple languages, a penchant for deep analysis. Unfortunately, Enkyo2 is simply unable to present her/his (I recall it's his, but I'm not entirely certain) put his thoughts into a form that others can understand. Please understand that I mean the following with respect, but Enkyo2's writing reminds me of when the super-advanced alien race (or supercomputer) tries to talk to mere humans, and has concepts and perceptions that humans simply can't understand, so the end result is something between a philsophical treatise and a machine translation. I just don't see how such an individual, who has shown for many years an inability or unwillingness to communicate "on our level", can engage in a collaborative project. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. But I also suspect that we don't need a genius to tell us what a 19th-century French translation of a 17th-century Japanese work says, when we have English-language sources from top-class scholarly publishing houses that say the same thing (or that don't). As I pointed out on Rjanag's talk page, I'm perfectly willing to help Enkyo, and I'm not arguing for any kind of indefinite block. The question is whether he is willing to accept this. (Or perhaps whether it's my choice to make, given everything that happened while I was away.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Bump. Enkyo, you've chosen not to edit Wikipedia since your last post in this thread although I assume that you are continuing to read it and check your watchlist. It would be very helpful if you would reply here with any thoughts about your communication style and whether it might be improved to get your messages across more clearly. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Nurhusien rangeblock

This user has been adding nonsense like this for a long time. It's easy to see that all the contributions come from a simple IP range 213.55.73.0/25 - see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nurhusien. Ginsuloft (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support: nothing but disruption of the project and sock puppetry. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Please note that this editor appears to have been active at non-English Wikipedias and Commons too: see [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] and [20]. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. --Rschen7754 18:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have just one small request: could someone please revert Nurhusien's vandalism at [21]? The edit filter there won't let me do so. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not autoconfirmed on Commons either. I removed it in 2 edits, since apparently the filter is triggered if more than 150 characters are removed: [22]. Ginsuloft (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

IP disruption

Howdy. Graham87 and I, sleuths that we are, recently blocked two IPs, 109.154.83.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 109.154.90.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It's irritating little stuff--dates and sometimes factoids are changed or added, with an edit summary funnily derived from the article title. They were quite prolific in their edits. Here's two questions for you all.

Does this look familiar to you? Have you run into this joker before?

Should we, or at what point should we consider a range block?

The latter especially is for the smart ones among you; Graham and I declare ourselves not knowledgeable enough and wash our hands of any collateral damage. Anyway, it seems likely that they did this before and are likely to do it again, so any previous experiences may be worth bringing up here. Thank you all, and have a GREAT Saturday, Drmies (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

YouTube is an ELNEVER, right? Will I get in trouble for linking to [this]? :P

Seriously, though, interesting conundrum...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Youtube is a "depends". If it's uploaded to an official channel, it can be used. If it's "ripped" it's WP:COPYLINK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Legobot is (was) malfunctioning

It appears that for a short period of time this morning, User:Legobot was editing logged out. User:Crazycomputers has blocked the IP, so there may be no further action needed. There is a corresponding gap in the bot's contributions as well. I'm notifying here in case anyone has additional insight into the issue. Cheers! Tgeairn (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

And I've unblocked. I've already stated that I fixed the issue when it occurred. Blocking internal IPs like 10.4.1.125 can cause issues for users who are using an internal proxy that passes XFF headers, so it probably wasn't a good idea to do so. Legoktm (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I somehow knew you'd already be on top of it. Thanks for the note. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea to be running an unapproved bot, either. It was a great idea to block the IP until the problem could be fixed. NE Ent 12:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The bot was fully approved under harej/Chris, and I don't think anyone was complaining that RFC bot/GA bot were back. Furthermore, blocking any internal IP is a horrible idea because we now have XFF blocking, which means that anyone who's internet setup may be using internal proxies that send XFF headers, can get blocked. Legoktm (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Persistent disruptions from User:VP44444

Hi, this is my first report at WP:AN/I, so if I make any foolish errors, or if I'm in the wrong place, I apologize.

VP44444 has been editing regularly at various articles related to SpongeBob Squarepants, which is a heavily-vandalized series of articles. While the user does often contribute what are technically "constructive" edits, their constructive edits usually appear after a spate of indecisive test edits, resulting in edit histories (and Watchlists) being flooded with their edits. The user has previously warned for edit-warring with themselves. User is unresponsive to warnings or discussions related to their edits.[23][24], even though they have been specifically invited.

User toned down their indecisive edits slightly after receiving a final warning about their disruptive edit style, but their disruptions picked up again. If the editor is not capable of understanding why their flip-flopping test edits are disruptive, that should be addressed. If they are creating intentional disruptions, and attempting to mask vandalism behind constructive edits, that should be addressed. I notice that the user has twice previously been fingered as a possible sockpuppet/master. And though they have protested their innocence in the past, I do not see that this editor's contributions (while at times constructive) are typical of an earnest editor who makes a few mistakes here and there. Rather, it seems, there is either a fundamental incompetence, or a pernicious motivation.

The following are some examples of their disruptive edits over the last month or so. I focused more on patterns instead of recent edits:

Extended content

August 11-12 2013 Changes season "9" to "nine" / Changes Season "nine" back to "9" August 14, 2013 Adds (poorly formatted) wikilink to [[HD|High Definition]] / Reverts edit. August 15, 2013 Adds "(HD)" / Reverts August 16, 2013 Adds "Note: This season marks the transition to HD on regular-length episodes." / Moves line / Clarifies line / Removes line and confuses sentence / Replaces line with confusing sentence. August 16, 2013 Changes Storyboard director to director(s) / Changes Storyboard director(s) back to director August 16, 2013 I remove unnecessary caption per [[Template:Infobox Television]]. / User restores caption with no explanation. / Another user removes caption. / VP44444 restores caption with no explanation. / I remove caption with further explanation, and after opening up Talk Page discussion at main SpongeBob article talk page. August 18, 2013 Changes slightly de-plagiarized existing summary, to / exact plagiarism. August 26, 2013 User attempts to add an image, but can't settle on image size or placement. Add image / 100px? / 70px? / 85px? / 110px? / 130px? / 150px? / 1px? / 100px? / 110px? August 29, 2013 User changes "Episode No." to non-MOS "Episode №" for all seasons, then reverts each change: S1 change / S1 revert S2 change / S2 revert S3 change / S3 revert S4 change / S4 revert S5 change / S5 revert S6 change / S6 revert S7 change / S7 revert S8 change / S8 revert September 5-6, 2013 Adds "See Also" section. / Removes "See Also" section. September 6, 2013 Removes unnecessary information he previously submitted. / Resubmits it.

Thanks for your time. I almost want to apologize for all the information, but I wanted to properly document the issues. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I would support this ANI thread for this user. User has been reverting changes leaving no explanation. The one that really got onto my nerves was his revisions in the season nine article changing the directing credits to writing credits. I know he was just adding the "Storyboard" credits but not thinking that he would affect other columns, that's just nonsense. I have reverted that edit manually but he reverted me again without explaining why. He had also been disambiguating unnecessary pages to another pages like this which was then reverted by another user for being "unnecessary." Like what was mentioned above, user is not responding to warnings but persists on disrupting pages. I don't want to be the "bad" guy here or something and I don't want to say something that's bad but I have no choice. This user in question is helpful yet undesired in the project. I would suggest to have this user blocked (temporarily or indefinitely if the case have been so worse now) because of being so disruptive to the project. Thanks. Mediran (t • c) 01:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

My block of Dede12341

Dede12341 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously warned for BLP violations; I blocked it for decade/century vandalism, for which the editor had been reverted, but not warned. I have no objection to the block being changed to a 4-imm warning, but I don't see evidence that the editor is here for a constructive reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Good block looks like there was a final warning on aug 30th. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

  My concern is that the final warning (and, in fact, all warnings then present on his talk page) were for BLP violations, and my block is for decade/century "vandalism". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but I would expect an account under final warning not to vandalise at all. Besides, it isn't like there's a lot of constructive edits to balance any of this out. Switching one's method of disruption doesn't wipe the slate clean. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Concept (Rapper)

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.

---

Johnhoward217 has removed 3 CSD tags from the article Concept (Rapper), one of which after being warned. The article shows absolutely no importance, and would have already been deleted by now if he didn't remove the tags. Hope this helps! buffbills7701 01:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

In my not-so-adminny opinion, this may assert notability enough to pass A7, "His type of music has influenced many of the people", "started his own label named Global Music Group". Granted I don't think this person is notable, but I'm not sure it meets the "no assertion of notability" required for A7. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 02:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If I created my own music label today, I still wouldn't be notable. "His type of music has influenced many of the people" is very weaselish, and also sounds a bit like a promotion. I hope this clears things up for you. buffbills7701 02:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not whether they are notable, it's whether they assert importance or notability in any way. In my opinion, it barely got by saying some things that look to be claims of importance. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 02:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Bullying on a AfD

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pixar Theory Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any "bullying"; what admin action is being asked for here? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

This, near the bottom of the page now, sounds like some kind of threat to me: "I suspected as much and was simply being kind in offering you a way to regroup with dignity. Your choice to concentrate on just the one offered source makes it appear that you are ignoring that the guideline acceptable WP:NEWSBLOG was not the only source offered. And if you are aware of applicable guidelines and still choose to promote a stance that runs contrary to existing consensus and community standards, that's on you... and good luck."

• Yes Kitfoxxe, what administrative action are you requesting for what was simply a polite caution and a wishing of luck to an editor who feels that his personal opinions supersede that of policy, guideline, and established consensus. No threat from me. No bullying from me. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I guess the "that's on you... and good luck" sounded a little, well, mafia-like. As if bad things were going to happen to a person who dares to go against "existing consensus and community standards." Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Had you asked me before bringing this to ANI for an as-yet-to-be-defined administrative action, I would have been happy to respond to you. I think we've all seen the wished-to-be-avoided drama which occurs across these pages when editors act upon a feeling their personal opinions outweigh or over-rule "existing consensus and community standards." Advising that running afoul of policy, guideline, and established consensus can have unfortunate consequences is more a warning and statement of fact than any promise or assurance of ultimate repercussions. Those visiting that discussion will see that I was not the only one pointing out the error of that editor's premises... but admittedly, I was the only one wishing him luck in future discussions if he continues to claim his personal opinion over-rules existing guideline and policy. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you just drop it, Schmidt. I'm completely uninterested in continuing this argument with you, as I've already said everything I have to say on the matter (in a more appropriate arena); repeating it ad nauseam does nothing to bolster your arguments. If this matter is resolved, I think we can just close this discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I was properly responding HERE because an ANI was opened HERE over someone else's perception that my comments toward you at AFD were "bullying", and an explanation/defense was required HERE toward any assertion of bullying. And yes, though my clarification may be of use to others reviewing this ANI, we need not rehash HERE a discussion elsewhere about application of policy or guideline. However, the base question remains "was it bullying or not". When the issue brought to HERE is resolved, and in response to your suggestion above, I can certainly "just drop it". Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think all involved have agreed that it's not bullying and essentially a misunderstanding. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone. I see that NinjaRobotPirate is tough enough to take care of him/herself. But I should have known that from the name. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Only User:NinjaRobotPirateZombie would be tougher! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Atrisacompany

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.

---

Atrisacompany (talk · contribs)

The username above is a blatant violation of WP:USERNAME, and as such warrants a spamusernameblock/softerblock, but as his/her/their edits are almost exclusively to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Atrisacompany, I am uncomfortable with bringing this user to WP:UAA. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 05:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Please close this thread. This isn't the right forum - will try other venues. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 10:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Admin wants to keep sockpuppet tag on my user page so others can keep reverting my edits

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

---

User:Toddst1 keeps adding a sockpuppet tag on my user profile page [25] and has threatened to block me if I remove it. If other editors see this tag they are likely to revert all my edits because the tag states: "This account has been blocked for a period of time due to the operator's abusive use of one or more accounts." The SPI proved that User:Brinkidiom was not me but someone on a different continent. [26]. See also my talk page. [27]--Fareed30 (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(non-admin observation) It's not User:Brinkidiom, but User:22 Male Cali that you were blocked for. As WP:SOCK#LEGIT states, "It is recommended that multiple accounts be identified as such on their user pages; templates such as {{User alternative account}} or one of a selection of user boxes may be used for this purpose." You did not, you were called out on it and it was decided that your use of the alternate account was not in a way that is approved of, and you must now suffer the consequences. Those consequences, though, do not include people being likely to revert your edits - that's not what the tag is for at all. Ansh666 07:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've served my sentence. I didn't use 2 accounts on the same page, except only one time which was by mistake. Where does it mention that an active editor must be tagged on his user profile page with ((sockpuppeteer|timeblocked|confirmed))? Is there any other editor tagged this way or is it just me? I made one simple mistake and this was squashed but it seems that User:Toddst1 is not satisfied with the result so he wants to pick a fight with me in order to reblock me.--Fareed30 (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Fareed, you undermine your credibility when you misstate what happened in your opening post and you fail to notify Toddst1. I've done that for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@User:Ansh666 most people wont even know what the tag means and they will automatically start reverting User:Fareed30. As for User:Todd why does he insist the tag stay? If Fareed learned his lesson and isnt using the other account then whats the problem? Caden ^cool 10:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While we're correcting the record, you and 22 Male Cali both edited four articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to say it is an unusual use of the template, and not something I think the community broadly supports (i.e. punitive). The wording of the template (in its various forms) implies use for currently blocked sockpuppeteers. So if someone's block has expired and they are returned to good standing in our community then they should be allowed to exercise the normal control over their user page. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The tag is misleading and its wrong. I think so. Caden ^cool 10:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Errant, although I don't know what the statistics are on which admins favor using the template and which don't, I suspect you're right that those who do are in a minority. The ultimate issue is whether we want to document "temporary" sock puppetry. The template serves that purpose. I suppose the only way to support that kind of documentation is to differentiate a sock puppetry block from other blocks because we don't document other blocks in that way. The part of your objection that has to do with the wording could be resolved by creating another template and using a different tense, but I imagine you would still object to using it. Me, I have mixed feelings on the issue. I used to believe in its use, but I've reconsidered my position based on a conversation with another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Who gives a shit what admins favor? It's what the community favors that matters. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The tag says he's currently blocked for socking, however, he's not currently blocked. He was blocked for two weeks, but that block's already expired. I'd say that particular tag is punitive and should be removed. If you really have the need to tag him as someone that's used sock puppets, aren't there tags that state that without stating that he's still blocked ??  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:REMOVED says "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction." (emphasis mine). The sock block is no longer an active sanction. Logically, forcing an editor to maintain a "free pass to revert me" sock tag on their page makes the sanction effectively indefinite, which is obviously not the intent. I've removed the tag. NE Ent 11:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What happened to AGF? Just because a user has previously socked does not mean they will in the future. Let everyone move on - the tag should not be re-added. GiantSnowman 11:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Users in good standing have a reasonable measure of control over their user and talk pages, and cannot and should not be forced to live with content they don't want there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. Once an editor is unblocked, they are deemed no longer to be a threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia, and reminding other editors that they once were is of no use. If they disrupt again (and I'm not implying in any way they would), it's not hard for somebody to pull out the relevant diffs in a future ANI thread. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Plus, just like with blanked warnings, it can be found in the page history. —C.Fred (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) I would think that if Fareed30 placed the {{User previous account|22 Male Cali}} on his user page then it would satisfy Toddst1's concern of the accounts being properly linked and {{sockpuppeteer|timeblocked|confirmed}} would no longer be needed on the page. My greater concern here, as Bbb23 pointed out, is that Fareed30 failed to notify Toddst1 about this discussion, which Bbb23 has subsequently done. Technical 13 (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• C'mon guys, what happened to WP:AGF?_{Realised I used almost the exact same phrase as GiantSnowman} I doubt Fareed30 has posted at ANI before and thus is probably unfamiliar with the process; while the orange notice does help new users identify and comply with the conditions of filing a request/complaint here, some users do miss it. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• I thank you all for paying attention, and I believe you've made an appropriate decision. About me failing to notify Toddst1, I was just afraid that he was going to block me. He has done that after I fixed an article. [28]--Fareed30 (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Please add the template as I suggested above (or {{User alternative account master}} if you prefer) to prevent any further SPI issues for you as long as you are a good faith editor. For future reference, always notify anyone involved with any AN discussion (including all sub-branches like AN/I here). There is very little chance of a block sticking for an AN report (and actually, blocking someone for filing an AN could result in desysoping if the community didn't agree it was appropriate). Technical 13 (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• There is a clear consensus against the tag. I have no problem with that, but it's in my nature to quibble, so ... First, the tag does not say he is currently blocked; the tense is ambiguous. Second, the BLANKING policy can be interpreted the way NE Ent does, but it can also be interpreted to mean sock notices, current or not. Although wordy, one way to fix that would be to make the second clause read "confirmed sockpuppetry related notices regarding a currently active block". In my view, to change the wording would require a greater discussion than took place here. I might add that some admins don't tag the master even during the period the master is blocked. They only tag if the master is indefinitely blocked. Of course, that begs the question why the template has wording for this type of situation. The template also has a version for a temporary block after a CU, which uses a different tense. It's all kind of messy, actually.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• I'm as rabid of an anti-sock person as they come, and I can't endorse this usage. The socking is in the block log, so any reoccurrence will take the previous socking into account. It's intended to mark a blocked or suspected account, not as a permanent marker after the block as expired.—Kww(talk) 16:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• I'd close this discussion except based on Todd's contribution history, he may not even be aware of the topic, and I don't want to close it before he's had a chance to respond. In the meantime, I propose we name Kevin as "Most Rabid Anti-Sock Editor".--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I second that motion. All in favor?...William 18:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• The tag can obviously go. I wonder if anyone has the balls to block Toddst1 for essentially vandalizing this user's page and threatening him with a baseless block if he didn't do as he was told. Actually, I don't wonder, but in a perfect world... Joefromrandb (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• In a "perfect world" there wouldn't be calls for sanctions every time an administrator does something someone disagrees with and the word vandalism would not be bandied about at the drop of a hat or some other article of clothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Could someone please explain to me why User:Toddst1 is not being held accountable for his poor actions and poor behavior in regards to a misleading tag? And what about his threats to User:Fareed30? Am I the only one who sees some serious issues with this admin's actions and behavior? Why is Todd being given a free pass? Caden ^cool 14:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This is the 2nd time in less than three months that Toddst1 has done something suspect. Here[29] he is clearly violating WP:INVOLVED.[30]...William 15:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

And he is an admin??? OMG. Caden ^cool 15:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, Toddst1 was editing today but chose not to take part in this ANI discussion....William 17:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is Todd being given a free pass? Seriously? He is an ADMINISTRATOR. He is infallible. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb. Huh? Are you saying that just because Toddst1 is an admin he doesnt have to follow the rules? So being an admin means you get a pass to break the rules? Is that what you are saying? Caden ^cool 14:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for close from any non-involved editor as this discussion has gotten badly off-topic and this thread seems otherwise resolved. Technical 13 (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Naming and shaming editors on the talk page

User User:Januarythe18th made a thread [31] on the talk page of Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University with a list of all accounts that ever edited the page which he believes belong to the religious movement. Together with the list he places a series of accusations directed to all of them, implying his right to revert all edits made by any of the accounts. Is that a normal behavior in Wikipedia? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(After lots of edit conflicts...) Yes, it's quite normal to name single purpose accounts as most of these seem to be. By the way, have you discussed this with the user and notified them on their talk page of this discussion? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, Kim. Does that mean the accounts listed there lose their right to edit the article? I didn't know about the policy of single-purpose-accounts nor that I was one of them, as I edited articles of different subjects/areas in my first few weeks on wikipedia. My account has also been listed there. Yes I did notify him and the subject was discussed on the talk page. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The users listed there absolutely do NOT lose any rights, nor can they be reverted without good cause. And what's more the listing is only one person's opinion; Jan18th may be wrong about some of them but I have to say at a cursory glance many of them do indeed only seem to be focussing on one narrow set of articles (and with one limited point of view. With an article like the one being discussed, I'm afraid it's often the case that very partisan editors (sometimes recruited by advocates of the subject) come along to push a particular agenda. It's usually pretty obvious who they are and it can be useful to identify them in this way. But if your own edits and talk page comments are balanced and constructive, just being on one person's list is no bar to you editing. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that, Kim. I completely agree with what you said, articles of religious movements naturally attract people who want to portray their religion as the one and only truth, completely perfect, etc. which of course is not near an encyclopedic point of view. But don't you agree, that religious articles also attract the other extreme side - haters of that religion, people devoted to portray the religion as negatively as possible out of religious hate? By watching Januarythe18th behavior on the talk page, I do feel that is the case about him. I think some of the users there who are connected to the religion and which have been placed in that list, are merely people willing to turn the article into a neutral, encyclopedic one, rather then its present version, which all users on the talk page, except Januarythe18th, agree by consensus, is very negatively biased. I feel Januarythe18th is probably an ex-member of Brahma Kumaris and is very dedicated to portraying a very specific and extreme version of it according to his POV.

Sorry, I don't want to bother you with those conjectures. In practice, what all of that means is: I've witnessed some opinions on the articles agreed by 5 editors, including non-members of the religion, except January18, which he insistently reverted and it seems all users are scared from participating on that page. I myself feel scared to even touch anything on that page by seeing how Januarythe18th treats all other editors. He says the article is very accurate and needs no changes. He is the only editor who thinks like that, all other editors think the article is nothing near encyclopedic, and reads like an anti-religious propaganda. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I need to acknowledge this, however, I have no desire to waste more resources over it. It's a simple case of WP:MEAT. A tagteam of editors, some of whom are being centrally coordinated, which has been going on for year to the same pattern. Are we really supposed to believe that someone who has made a total 3 minor edits to the Wikipedia (all of which were quickly reverted [32] on Outline_of_chess) has the knowledge and understanding to dive directly into making complex complaints, policy wrangling, and gameplay? If so, then I am Jesus come back from the dead ... (see thread below).

If this is a simple question, then it is in the wrong place and should be in Teahouse. Of course it's not a simple question, it's WP:GAMING.

The Brahma Kumari adherents have been given an option which is to develop a sandbox version of the topic to show us what it is their organization wants, and then to discuss that. They refuse to even discuss the idea.

In the meanwhile they have been asked to contribute something, anything at all, to the Wikipedia; and to engage with its community in order to learn more about its values and policies. I believe this response is the most reasonable within the circumstances, and in the best interests of the Wikipedia as a whole. They need to learn to give. --Januarythe18th (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Januarythe18th, if you have enough evidence that I am a meatpuppet or sockpuppet, please present your evidence in the right place, which is not here. The article is heavily biased and is bait for members of a religion who has 1 million followers around the world, you have no proof the editors know each other. They just see the same obvious problem with the article. An admin already said in this thread that each editor on the article has the same right as you have to edit the article. Tags on neutral POV have been agreed by consensus of all editors except you, but you agressively reverted them AGAIN. I am going to report you right now as editwarring. You are also a single purpose account, almost all your edits are to BKWSU, the only difference is that you are an ex-member with an anti-BK campaign, the members of the religion who are active on the talk page only want neutrality, but you aggressively revert against consensus. You give orders to all other editors as an authority. I ask the admins do they support Jan18's behavior? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

And with a grand total of 3 instantly reverted edits on other pages, we are expected to believe you have the knowledge of policy and experience to place three complex complaints? Even to know where to?

The way forward is for the Brahma Kumari supporters to develop a sandbox copy of BKWSU topic to show us what their organization wants. You need to stop crying wolf and all this WP:ADMINSHOPing circus, and go edit some pages to gain more experience. --Januarythe18th (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, I would like to ask the attention to admins that Jan18 is aggressively editwarring[33] against an edit which came from a wide consensus on the talk page, of all editors except himself. Is 1 single editor allowed to revert an edit agreed by more than 5? - which are editors from different backgrounds, NOT a team as Jan18 claims. Jan18 himself is NOT comming from a neutral point of view, being an ex-member of Brahma Kumaris. He has a very specific point of view on the subject, which is not neutral. Should he be able to make his POV prevail over all consensus? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:ADMINSHOP again. You'll find you fall out of favour very quickly if all you do is come on the Wikipedia to make complaints and expect other people to run around for you.

Again, you're misrepresenting my position entirely to establish prejudices and although I am happy to clarify, here is not the correct place to discuss it. Please stop wasting other people's time. --Januarythe18th (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I would REALLY like to call the attention of admins to this. After making 3 reverts with the account Jan18th, a 4th revert was made using a logged off IP address!!! GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to scream, although I agree that the revert by the IP is troubling. The article has now been locked by @CIreland:.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for screaming, Bbb23, thank you.

Excuse me, I think it may be worth mentioning here that Januarythe18th may be violating WP:HOUND. He followed me to a page I was editing: Outline_of_chess and made a post on the talk page [34], completely personal and unrelated to the article, behaving exactly as described by WP:HOUND. Although it was a simple process of WP:BRD and my edit was accepted by consensus, Januarythe18th said things like: (quote)"They do not have any obligation to spoonfeed you and so do not expect them to spend their time pandering to your every whim nor explaining every action." I tried to politely ask him, on his talk page, [35] to use my talk page instead, since his message was personal and unrelated to Outline_of_chess. In his response [36], while seeming loaded with what seems an anti-religious mocking, he also turned one of the words in my post into bold. Is he allowed to edit the posts of other editors? He has also done the same thing with a post of the user Danh108, where he stroke a part of the message he didn't agree with [37]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyWinterOwl (talk • contribs) 11:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/99.181.135.238

Should all these edits be mass reverted? See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list --Glaisher [talk] 11:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, I reverted all the edits after seeing that Favonian started reverting them. --Glaisher [talk] 11:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Pretty please can I do a mass rollback next time, so I can hear what it sounds like on Listen to Wikipedia? Drmies (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Canada-based IP user posting problematically in hundreds of RMs

I've had positive interactions with 76.65.128.43/76.65.128.222/70.24.244.158 (and probably some others he/she has used as well) in the past, but lately I've found this user's jumping across hundreds of RMs problematic. Most of his comments are inane and irrelevant, drawing links between barely-related RMs, with the (possibly intentional) effect of undermining one by false association with the other. And when he/she !votes it gets even worse: on both Empress Jingū and Empress Gemmei his/her oppose !votes implied he/she had not actually read my OP argument, and had done zero research on the topic. In the former case it worked out okay, but in the latter ... let's just say these topics don't get much traffic, and it's likely one bogus "oppose" will cancel out my OP comment, with the end result being "no consensus". This user is apparently trying to rack up thousands of edits without any regard for what those edits' effects are. I don't mind shifting IPs !voting in RMs, but I would appreciate some more care being taken in the process. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would you characterize most of my comments as inane or irrelevant? It seems you're only upset I've opposed your suggestions regarding the use of "m" versus "n" in your particular area, as you haven't participated in the other requested moves. Further how is noting that you've made other move requests for other articles to be renamed from "m" to "n" on the same transliteration rule either irrelevant or inane? And what is irrelevant or inane about using the previous move request result and the arguments therein to support my position? -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

There were no arguments presented in the previous RM, and if you weren't too busy hopping around RMs in hundreds of different topic areas (you clearly aren't an expert in all of them) you might have noticed that. Why can't you be more careful? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you would want to participate in the RfC I filed at WP:VPP on renaming then? If you're tracking my activity on requested moves, surely you'd have seen it.

So, your implication is that only experts in a particular subject are allowed to post opinions? We are not Citizendium. If you present a strong argument supporting your requested name, and if the arguments in opposition to your rename are weak, that should be enough to rename pages. Closure is not headcounting, it evaluates the arguments for and against. I already know that as an IP editor, my arguments have a lower weight that yours do in any consensus discussion.

The old move request clearly shows usage, that is an argument presented.

You yourself said that modern usage shows "Emperor" being used, so why use a half measure when your own nomination shows that it was sliding towards "Emperor Genmei" ? I took your presentation at face value. You've since posted a reply correcting the impression left by your nomination, which I hadn't yet read until now.

Perhaps you can participate at Talk:Ed Farhat ? That surely is low participation and needs more editors to comment on it. Or at my own nomination, at Template talk:Oceanic topic which as you're an expert on Japan(?), would fall into your area of expertise, since some Japanese territories lay within Oceania.

-- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Ideally a large number of people would participate in all RMs, examine the evidence, and actually engage in discussion. In practice, though, it's very common for users to come along, !vote based on their gut instinct, and then fail to return and discuss when they are challenged. This is only problematic in a very few cases, where there's never going to be much participation, period. I would have expected the Empress Genmei RM to go pretty much like the Edogawa Ranpo RM -- no one else cares one way or the other, and the proposed move passes by default. You failed to notice that, as I pointed out, almost all reliable sources published in the last decade refer to her as "Empress Genmei", not "Emperor Genmei" or "Empress Gemmei". Anyway, ideally there would be a large amount of active participation in all RMs, but it's not necessary. If we have a choice between a very small number of users discussing moves, or a large number of dedicated RM-junkies going around casting !votes in as many RMs as possible and then failing to actually discuss or provide valid reasons, the former is almost certainly the choice the majority of Wikipedians would make. I am not saying anything should be done to you or that these aren't just good-faith mistakes. I am asking you to either think before you cast a !vote in an RM, about whether you might inadvertently hijack the RM and cause a negative outcome (you may have accidentally set a precedent that all female tennōs in Japanese history need to be called "Emperor"), or to come and engage in discussions that you started, and consider my reasonable responses to you.

I should also note that I'm not interested in participating in the same amount of RMs as you. It's not a contest, and participation in Wikipedia is voluntary. I'm only editing as long as it's fun and rewarding for me, and posting to RMs in subjects I know nothing about and have no interest in is neither fun nor rewarding for me.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As you've examined my efforts at RM, you would have noticed that several other uses participate in many RMs. It would be nice if you would also participate in those with low participation, though I do understand why you haven't from your statement of interest. Though the proposal at VPP deals with all articles, Japanese included, so might be in your area of interest (concerning accurate naming for files, so that the files used for articles are named well)

Concerning females, and emperor, I personally, have no problem with using unisex titles for everything. We're already drifting that way for the English language, with the reduced use of actress in favour of actor, the loss of the word aviatrix, and so forth.

As for lodging a reply at the RM, I'll wait to see if I'm blocked or we're given an interaction ban first. That move is directly related to this ANI discussion, so I'd like the admins to weigh in on it, and give advice on my conduct, as you've already started this ANI discussion.

-- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I find it highly unlikely that you'll be blocked or IBANned, given that no one has requested either of those. Yes, I am not asking for any sanctions against you. I just want this thread to be closed now.

As for your other points: I don't mind unisex titles either, but we shouldn't be going against the majority of reliable sources unless it's a small majority (it is) and we have a style/consistency guideline (we don't). If we moved Empress Gemmei because you and I would prefer "Emperor", then we'd have to move the other 7 articles linked to in Japanese empresses#Empresses regnant, all of which are equally obscure (and so WP:COMMONNAME doesn't really apply to them). I actually think this is an interesting issue that I might raise on WikiProject Japan or MOSJ, given that The Japan Times has joined the list of sources that say "female emperor". But I took enough bull for my last large multimove request, so I'm not interested in bringing up other issues in the Gemmei RM. I actually recently got in a minor dispute over on Commons recently over whether Wikipedia consensus and style guidelines should apply to file descriptions, and probably titles. I might take a look at the VPP thing, then. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri88 - I think you should just accept that if you participate in Wikipedia, some people will disagree with your proposals. I cannot see anything wrong with the IP editor's activities. Like you, he/she is not infallible. Sometimes he/she will be right, and sometimes you will be, and quite often there will be no consensus, because it is not clear who is right. You should welcome other editors taking the time to look at your move requests, and assume good faith unless you have evidence to the contrary.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally take a look at these two editors' contributions.

• Special:Contributions/70.24.244.158
• Special:Contributions/Hijiri88

It tells a tale.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I know other people disagree with me. I can accept that. I'm actually kind of disappointed I largely missed out on a lively debate that was happening on Talk:Revere the King, Expel the Barbarians#Requested move. The problem is that this IP user doesn't disagree with me. He/she has just failed to read my comments thoroughly before casting a !vote. The fact is that, if he/she had not showed up at Empress Gemmei and made a bizarre proposal that isn't borne out by any of the evidence, it's likely no one would have commented on the RM and it would have passed as unopposed after a week. Now it's just as likely no one else will comment, and it will be blocked as no consensus just because 70... didn't look at sources I presented. (Note that Talk:Empress Jingū#Requested move 2 probably would have come out that way had I not mentioned it in passing on a related ANI thread and a bunch of other users immediately shown up, read the evidence, and supported the move.) I'm not asking for sanctions, and I'm not saying these aren't simply good-faith mistakes. I just want 70... to be more careful in the future. Perhaps occasionally come back and reconsider his/her !votes when other users respond. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

With your comment about my editing my own talk page for more succinct and less inflammatory section titles, I'd like to avoid some incindiary statements at the RM request. While you may be forgiven for civility breaches, I doubt I would be. We're at WPANI, so lets just stay out of each other's way until this is resolved. And in future ignore each other's replies at any requested move. (and not reply to each other's lodged opinions at requested moves, only lodging an opinion on the move request itself.) -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your trying to work with me to resolve this, but that's the opposite of what I want. Probably my main problem with your RM comments is not that you make problematic !votes in the first place, but that you don't come back and retract said !votes or otherwise engage me when I point out that your !votes run against all the evidence. I really wouldn't mind you jumping around hundreds of RMs on subjects you haven't researched, if you actively engaged in the discussions following your !votes. This would demonstrate your good faith and willingness to admit that you are wrong sometimes. There's no problem with making a good-faith mistake if you come back and correct it when other users inform you of it. The problem is when you just leave it and let others come along and either ignore it or (worse) follow your suit and !vote against because "everyone except the OP is against the move". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I do not see your point about 70.24.244.158's comment at Talk:Revere the King, Expel the Barbarians#Requested move - he/she did not make a comment.
• 70.24.244.158's comment at Talk:Empress Gemmei#Requested move is a perfectly reasonable comment. It is not "bizarre" as you claim.
• At Talk:Empress Jingū#Requested move 2Talk:Emperor Jimmu#Requested move, he/she made a series of helpful, useful comments, as follows:

1. At 12:57, 12 August 2013, he/she pointed out that "the nomination template does not match the text used." Your response to this was to accept that you had made some mistakes when you made the nomination.
2. At 05:39, 14 August 2013, he/she, made the point: "see also Talk:Edogawa Rampo for a related rename discussion"

Here is a list of how many comments each user made at Talk:Empress Jingū#Requested move 2Talk:Emperor Jimmu#Requested move, I have compiled this based on the number of signature blocks. I have also noted the nature of their comments. You will notice that the propose made 18 out of 36 comments. That two editors supported the move, and fourtwo opposed it.

• Hijiri 88 18 (proposer)
• Necrothesp 6 (opposeoppose one out of six of the proposed moves)
• Enkyo2 4 (oppose)
• In ictu oculi 2 (support)
• 76.65.128.222 2 (commenting)
• Oda Mari 1 (opposeopposed, accidentally, moments before the close, retroactively indicating that they wouldn't oppose the move)
• Kusunose 1 (opposecomment)
• Cúchullain 1 (adjudicating)
• BDD 1 (relisting)

Your complaint about 70.24.244.158 does not stack up. I suggest you drop it on grounds of WP:SNOWBALL.

One of Hijiri 88's posts on Talk:Empress Jingū#Requested move 2Talk:Emperor Jimmu#Requested move about User:Enkyo2 is worth quoting here:

"Try actually reading the reasoning I have presented you with 3 times already. Stop assuming bad faith and stop opposing this RM as "revenge" for me removing your problematic "note". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)"

This suggests to me that the problem editor is Hijiri 88 and not the people that he/she is complaining about.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Toddy1, I'm genuinely sorry to have to refactor your above comment, but I told you numerous times that you were mistaken, and even still you refused to retract it. This indicates that the above was not a good-faith mistake, but rather a bald-faced lie. There's no reason why the completely off-topic lies of an uninvolved user who knows nothing about the issue at hand should remain on the record without correction. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I've told you plenty of times now, so your refusal to take it back clearly shows you don't give a damn about the facts, but the Jinmu and Jingū RMs were completely different and unrelated affairs. Jinmu saw little support, but little opposition either. Oda Mari accidentally opposed a matter of minutes before the close, and apologized for the misunderstanding when I showed her her mistake. Kusunose didn't oppose the move, rather just commenting and posting some NGrams. Enkyo2 indicated that he didn't oppose the move (when he deleted his own oppose !vote), but then came right back and opposed because I had posted a complaint about him elsewhere. It looks very likely that he's going to get a site ban for the same reason I complained about him. I was not in the wrong. And when it comes to the actual Jingū RM (not your imaginary Jingū RM) it received overwhelming support from a wide range of Wikipedia editors across the spectrum. It may in fact be the only RM toward a diacritic that Fyunck(click) supported. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!? You're linking to the RM on Emperor Jinmu, but claiming it's the RM on Empress Jingū. Please stop this madness. The Empress Jingū was supported by every single participant except the anon. Get your bloody facts straight and stop bringing in completely unrelated bullshit. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, search this page for "Enkyo2", and you will find another user (not me) calling for him to be indefinitely blocked. Please do your fucking research before randomly bringing up completely unrelated bullshit in order to harass me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

And for the record, I never said 70... was involved in the Sonno joi RM. Read my goddamn comments before going around misrepresenting me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You raised a whole series of things in your posting of 08:52. I commented on them. If the things you raised are not relevant to the IP editor's conduct, you have only yourself to blame for raising them.

By the way, I did not appreciate the abusive comment you just left on my talk page.[38] It is clear to me that the problem editor is Hijiri 88.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nor do I appreciate this edit by you[39] {{collapse top|title=Collapsed off-topic comments by third-party user who didn't check the links}}

--Toddy1 (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Hijiri88, sorry but I think this is uncalled for on the basis of your diffs. And generally I have quite a bit of respect for 76.65.128.43/76.65.128.222/70.24.244.158 's contributions to RM discussions, even when not agreeing with some of them they are generally for good reasons and show understanding of sources, guidelines and context. Likewise cross-notifying of related RMs also strikes me as good and helpful housekeeping. Move to close this discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hatting blocked sock and related comment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This kind of abusive statement, and also the use of collapse templates to hide other users' comments by Hijiri88 is very typical of what users have experienced from him on multiple talk pages, from at least January 2013. I'd like to encourage administrators and other readers to check some of Hijiri88's contributions to Wikipedia. Mister nine millimetre (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC) You're wrong. I did not bring up any of the stuff you are talking about. You're just talking gibberish that has absolutely nothing to do with the anon's edits. You're bringing up the Jinmu RM, which the anon did not oppose. You are lying by claiming this Jinmu RM to be the Jingū RM, in order to make me look like I am misrepresenting the facts. The Jingū RM was supported by three other users, and opposed only by the anon. If you don't want me to start a new thread here on your goddamn lies, you can choose now to either shut up and go away, or do your goddamn homework and contribute constructively to this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

IIO, you know I respect you. I even respect 70.... I am very close to resolving the issue with 70..., and I think I have this thread to thank for it. I wasn't kidding when I said the only reason I spent so long examining source after source on the Jingū RM was so 70...'s careless !vote wouldn't lead to a no-move result. The Genmei move is currently in a similar situation. Although, honestly, I think it's probably okay for 70... and I to just work out our differences on 70...'s talk page right now, and this thread has also invited at least one very unwanted guest who boasts on his page that he can't speak English, and I am beginning to believe it's not a joke ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Please can Hijiri 88 be blocked for abusive posts. Here is his/her latest.[40]--Toddy1 (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Toddy, if you don't give up this unprovoked, ridiculous and utterly bizarre campaign against me, you're going to be back here pretty soon and you'll be the one getting blocked. Stop deliberately misleading people by claiming the Jimmu RM is the Jingu RM. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Toddy, your call for a block is unnecessary at this time. Hijiri88, please don't continue with that sort of incivility or it won't be. We don't need an interaction ban, do we? --BDD (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Hijiri88, but I think I have to agree with IIO on this one. Cool down. We don't have a speech code, but profanity usually indicates that things are getting too hot. If you think uninformed IP votes are blocking what would otherwise be uncontroversial moves, try taking one or two to move review or bringing them up with a closer. I'm sympathetic to the difficulties of trying to work in an area like Japanese linguistics that just doesn't bring out the sort of participation that, say, Bradley Manning gets, but you should keep in mind that the Wikipedia community has little patience for editors with little patience. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I've disagreed with Hijiri88, as here and now. Presumably the reference to support of MOS:JAPAN as "trolling" indicates Mister nine millimetre (talk · contribs) is the latest addition Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuSasori/Archive? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think this thread has seen enough ridiculous drama. I just wanted someone to tell 70... to be more careful, but BDD has given me some decent advice on how to deal with it. I also note that of 4 uninvolved editors to participate here BDD and In ictu oculi are the only ones to actually be both rational and helpful. To be fair, JoshuSasori can't reasonably called "uninvolved" given that he followed me here, but still. And the less said about Toddy1's bizarre attempts to create a version of history where this move had minimal support, the better. Better close now. If no one supports the Gemmei (or other) RMs and they fail on minor technicalities I'll just get around that somehow. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Mister nine millimetre is clearly a sock with a grudge, probably JoshuSasori, and they should be blocked as per WP:DUCK; even if they are not Joshu, they've admitted to being a banned user already. Quite why they weren't blocked for their very first post in this thread is beyond me. Also, Toddy1's name is very close to Toddst1's name, but they've been around for a similar period of time, so it's just a weird coincidence. Frankly, Hijiri and Toddy are both very experienced users, and should know better - but we all lose our cool sometimes! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

NOTE, there's a continuing conversation on my talk page, related to this ANI discussion, so if some of my responses are a bit off, there may be some material on my talk page that is connected to my response here. As this ANI discussion is also getting quite long, I apologize in advance if I posted a reply in the incorrect position. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri88 has just pasted another abusive threatening message on my talk page.[41] He was warned by an admin about posting abusive messages.[42]--Toddy1 (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

He/she has also posted abusive threatening messages about me on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuSasori.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Dude, you've been posting lies about me here and elsewhere, you said I should be blocked for asking you to stop lying about me, you posted a supportive message on the talk page of the latest sock of the user who outed me, harassed my real-world employers and has been thoroughly CBANned. I was warned by an admin for using inappropriate language. I was not warned by an admin that I am not allowed warn other users that their abusive behaviour has consequences. You are following the exact same pattern of behaviour of a user who has since been banned. I am trying to help you by reminding you of the danger of what you are doing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we just go through Hijiri 88's statements above:

• "Dude, you've been posting lies about me here" - I made a mistake in my posting of 09:55, 7 September 2013. I went through some of the RMs Hijiri 88 referred to in his/her previous posts and one of them was different one than I thought I was commenting on. Given the nature of Hijiri 88's complaint about the IP editor, my error did not matter.
• "Dude, you've been posting lies about me... elsewhere". Where? Please show diffs.
• "you posted a supportive message on the talk page of the latest sock" - some editors created an SPI report without notifying the subject of the report. I posted a neutral message informing that editor,[43] so that he/she could respond. When I have made SPI reports on editors, I have posted messages on their talk pages.

I think the comment "harassed my real-world employers" is about somebody else, and not about me. As I have had no interaction with Hijiri 88 other than in connection with this ANI report, the messages on my talk page by him/her, and the SPI report, I do not see how that is relevant to me.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Toddy, if you're not even going to attempt to read Hijiri's post properly, then what's the point in replying? Your SPI message wasn't actually neutral, because it cited the reporting parties, whom obviously have past issues with JoshuSasori - SPI messages are not mandatory, don't forget, so posting any message at all was poking the bear - and the guy immediately confessed to being a sock with his ANI megaposting. And the comment "harassed my real-world employers" was NEVER aimed at you as it was referring to JoshuSasori; even a ten year old could tell that if they actually read Hijiri's post. And Hijiri, I've already told you that these threats aren't going to help your case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit queue

Can one of the brilliant minds who frequent this poophole and who also happen to be sysops take some time off the drama to process the protected edit request queue? The world (actually, just me) would be grateful. — Lfdder (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Calling Wikipedia a "poophole" isn't the wisest way to make a request, you know. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 14:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I called ANI a poophole, not WP. — Lfdder (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Normally, this kind of request goes to the AN poophole.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I posted it here so that the people who visit this particular poophole might be impelled to do something constructive. — Lfdder (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

(It didn't work. — Lfdder (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC))

Maybe not, but you inspired me. BBL. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Help regarding User:TheRedPenOfDoom

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

---

I have been contributing to the Saath Nibhaana Saathiya (Indian television series) article for some months now, primarily because of the rife vandalism it has experienced in the past (it is currently semi-protected until next year). My particular grievance is with the user TheRedPenOfDoom. For the past week or so, this user has been focusing on deleting a table of characters and cast members and replacing it with a simple list. This would not be a problem at all if the relevant and correct information was kept. Instead, the user seems to be inputting incorrect information about the duration of characters and cutting out altogether the roles of certain actors, for (ostensibly) appearance's sake. Names of relevant characters have been removed simply because their names are not known to the public.

Some contextual info is needed here: It is important to note that the channel that this particular series airs on, Star Plus, appears to avoid mentioning actors whenever possible - indeed, I referred to this on the user's talk page: the Star Plus website mentions none of the actors cast in the roles on Saath Nibhaana Saathiya, nor are these actors credited in the opening sequences - in addition, they collect awards in the ceremonies held by the channel (Star Parivaar Awards) firmly in their character roles. The lack of information regarding actors' names seems to be something very inherent in Indian television, whereby the channel intends to make "household names" out of their serials' characters. None of the actors are promoted by the channel or its website, as can be gleamed from the reference list on this article. The few actors that are known have been mentioned in such sources as newspaper or magazine websites, not from sources related to the channel, and it is those newspaper/magazine sources I added to the table of characters.

Nonetheless, in order to avoid an unhappy atmosphere, I conceded and agreed with many of this user's points, and I restored my original table but cut down on many of the parts he/she objected to, such as details referring to the relationships between characters. Nonetheless, the user has continued to either revert or significantly amend my edits to the point of total confusion. This user insists that unknown actors shouldn't be labeled as "unknown", insisting that it is "vandalism". Instead, he/she has removed information regarding those characters whose portrayers' names are not known.

In addition, there seems to be some misunderstanding regarding "cast" and "characters". This user insists that the table is a "cast" table, and should refer to the actors first and characters second. While this makes sense, it is also misjudged, seeing as many actors are simply unknown (but the parts they play are as significant as the others, as they appear on-screen with enough frequency to warrant their names listed in this article). My view is that it should be a "character" list, with all known characters referenced and listed in an encyclopedic manner.

I have discussed all these points and more on the user's talk page over the last couple of days, and I don't think I have received a relevant or reasonable response. I re-added some of the content that he/she removed and provided sources, but they were still reverted.

Looking through this user's contributions list, it seems that they are fixated with introducing a (probably well-meant, but confusing) "uniformity" among the cast/character sections of Indian television shows, with little regard for the correct information. Some of his edits make sense in that some pointless trivia is removed, I agree, but his reasoning for removing characters or inputting potentially misleading or confusing information is rather flimsy.

It all feels rather petty, and I take complete insult to his insinuations that I am "vandalising" this article (see his edit descriptions on this article's page, as well as my own talk page).

LBM | ^{TALK TO ME} 17:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:TLDR - also please provide some diffs as evidence of behavior. GiantSnowman 18:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The base problem here seems to be an insistence on describing the plot of the work as opposed to providing verifiable information about the work. This article is ridiculously plot heavy, and an insistence on describing characters (even in the complete absence of information about them) as opposed to a verifiable cast list is just another symptom of the base problem.—Kww(talk) 18:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I see a content dispute and an edit war, neither of which belongs here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be very grateful for any help on how to solve this dispute. Here are the relevant diffs from the article mentioned: [44]; [45]; [46]; [47]; [48]; [49]; [50]; [51]; [52]. LBM | ^{TALK TO ME} 18:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

First, you stop edit-warring. Then, you take your dispute to the article talk page (much better than user talk pages). Then, if you can't agree, use one of the dispute resolution mechanisms.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered listening to TheRedPenofDoom and taking his advice? As others have said, this is primarily a content dispute, not really a behavioural one, although both of you are coming up on edit warring problems. Since he has a stronger foundation for his argument, that will turn into a case of either the both of you being sanctioned or perhaps you being sanctioned. The chances of people declaring you the "winner" and acting solely against TheRedPenofDoom are quite remote.—Kww(talk) 18:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Come on GS, play nice. It's not that long. LBM, I have some advice for you: drop it. I'll speak as an editor: tables are unnecessary (I looked at the first diff and the two versions it presented). The information you're trying to stick in there doesn't need to be in there. In addition, it makes a bad article (unverified plot summary) even worse. Now as a colleague: this is not the proper forum. As Bbb says, take it to the talk page. Then consider Dispute resolution. Then consider a short vacation to the beach without internet. Finally, I'll speak as an admin: stop edit-warring. Have a great day, Drmies (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I don't want to be the "winner". I take offence at his insistence that his following protocol when in fact his edits result in incorrect information being added to the article (i.e., actors being credited for parts they no longer play). I'm not looking for praise, and I have indeed followed his advice by removing parts of the table he disagrees with. I gave up editing the article when I lodged my complaint, so there's no warring going on now. LBM | ^{TALK TO ME} 18:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI is not for the faint of heart. You've gotten advice from four administrators, three of whom know what they 're talking about. Don't react negatively. No one's accusing you of bad faith. Try to separate out which issues are most important and focus on those. It sounds to me like the "incorrect information" (I don't know what is or isn't correct) is the most important to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm completely fine with all your comments and help! I'm just rather annoyed with the article in question. Anyway - I'll follow all your advice and see how things go. Thanks for the help once again. LBM | ^{TALK TO ME} 18:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, the WP:CONSENSUS is that plot summaries for television programs, movies, and works of fiction are "sourced to the subject" and therefore don't require citations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Ban of User:JoMontNW

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.

---

To be frank, I don't understand why JoMontNW (talk · contribs) hasn't been banned from editing; the lattest sock is JRSMTNorth-West (talk · contribs). For two years JoMont has been vandalising Wikipedia, putting special emphasis on articles like Good Morning America, Today (U.S. TV program), Full House and their cast, including, but not limited to the articles Natalie Morales (and its talk Talk:Natalie Morales), Hoda Kotb or Matt Lauer. User:Bongwarrior may know more about if you have questions about this person. So, as this person hasn't make a single good edit and considering s/he is de facto banned, let's make this an official ban, so I support as nominator. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

If somebody has doubts about this person, s/he created Earth13iphone (talk · contribs) and NBCIntern13 (talk · contribs) while this discussion was opened and the user was notified about it. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support: From the looks of this user's contributions, it looks like they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Not to mention the numerous amounts of sockpuppets and attacks against other editors. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support - To be honest, I had thought that they were already banned. The user is only here to troll - revert and block without giving them a second thought. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oh hell yeah. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. - Definitely not here to collaborate like Ten Reasons I Hate Wikipedia? Really? Get him out of here. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Looks like Bongwarrior already banned him. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 14:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support We don't need anyone like this around here; there's probably some Today fansite they can go to in order to defend their favorite show (and stalker zeal for one of the anchors), but their edits aren't welcome here, and Full House bashing, like Barney bashing, is just plain passé at this point. Nate • (chatter) 21:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Sock edit warring on Religious views of Adolf Hitler?

I just got this message on my talk page, which indicates a suspicion that User:Greengrounds is already back, under an IP address, edit warring at Religious views of Adolf Hitler. So, yeah, it looks like Cynewolf was right above, when he said above that it looked like Greengrounds was going to return -- it looks like he has here. I don't deal with socks that much, but I think we need to probably except more of the same, and would very much welcome input from others who deal with socks more regularly. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi protect the page. NE Ent 23:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

John, you missed 1 edit from the IP. As I have done a revert on this article, better someone else to semi it. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

{{trout}} "any reasonable admin" -- just semi the page already. NE Ent 23:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I semi'd the article for a week and blocked IP for 72 hours. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Slow edit warring/disruptive editing by Enciclopediaenlinea and their IPs

This user has a long history of disruptive editing as evident by the number of warnings in their talk page.

There's a slow edit war happening in the article Spanish language caused by Enciclopediaenlinea and their IPs. It's quite evident that they are related. See the following diffs by Enciclopediaenlinea: [53], [54], [55], [56]. The most recent IPs have continued to edit war with 83.58.113.183 and 81.32.191.163. He was already warned by another user and myself.

More disruption can be seen in articles like Equatorial Guinea and Dominican Republic. He/she was warned for their disruptive editing. They were also involved in edit warring on the Dominican Republic in August. He/she has continued the same pattern on Dominican Repbublic for which they were warned for.

Would appreciate a block on Enciclopediaenlinea and the IPs or a semi-protection on Spanish language. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I blocked the last one, not the one from before. The IP and the master got two weeks, which might well turn into something longer. Article semi-protected for three months. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks a bunch! Elockid ^(Talk) 04:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Threats Made Against Me by User:67.218.41.166

67.218.41.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

User:67.218.41.166 made threats and claims he will have an Administrator kick me off of Wikipedia because I was allegedly harassing another Wikipedia user. What I did was simply contact User:Burgerkinger39 and stated that I was concerned that his username may violate WP:Username Policy and asked that he review that policy and consider changing his name and nothing more then that, then completely out of the blue this IP address user comes in and starts posting obscene language and threatening to have an administrator kick me off of Wikipedia. Any assistance would be appreciated. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You have an IP stalker it looks like. Not sure why, but it goes back to 2012. The IP appears to have first started impersonating you back then, trying to get your rollback removed ([57], [58], [59]). It was blocked three times for doing that. It also tagged one of your articles for deletion last month, which was quickely kept ([60]). I also see that you have brought this IP to ANI before, which led to some of the above blocks (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive762#Wikipedian Impersonation and bogus request to admin and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive763#User:67.218.41.166.

Most likely, this is an editor who you rolled back once, and since has been stalking you from their IP. Prior blocks have not solved the problem. I am prepared to impose a longer block. Singularity42 (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Singularity42 for your help. I have one question maybe you can answer, Is it at all possible to have my user page and talk page semi-protected so that only registered users can make changes or ask a question there and if so how to I go about requesting this? Thanks again. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your user page is easy, you just make a request, usually at WP:RFPP or directly to an admin. I've taken your above question as such a request, and semi-protected it. As for your main User talk page, we are very reluctant to protect user talk pages except for very short durations, and where no other solution, including blocking, is going to be a viable solution. There are often good reasons for IP editors to need to contact an editor, and not being able to can cause problems. You could make a seperate talk page that you monitor for those unable to edit semi-protected, but then you still get the messages. The relevant policy is at WP:UPROT. Monty₈₄₅ 02:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you User:Monty845. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

68.175.127.180

Hello,

Recently, [[Special:Contributions/68.175.127.180]|this user]] has been making a lot of edits that don't appear to be constructive, most (but not all) of them consist of adding or changing dates without providing sources. Here are a few examples.

Extended content

On Burlington Coat Factory: Edit made: [61] Edit made: [62] Edits reverted [63] On Mattel: Edit made: [64] Edit reverted: [65] On (I Just) Died in Your Arms: Edit made: [66] Edit reverted: [67] On Gone, Gone, Gone (song): Edit made: [68] Edit made: [69] Edits reverted: [70] On Christina Ricci: Edit made: [71] Edit reverted: [72] On Carolyn Jones: Edit made: [73] Edit reverted [74] On Dana Ferguson: Edit made: [75] Edit reverted: [76] On Kidsongs: Edit made: [77] Edit reverted: [78] Edit reverted: [79] On Spacetoon (Indonesia): Edit made: [80] Edit reverted: [81] On Gullah Gullah Island: Edit made: [82] Edit reverted: [83] On Amazon.com: Edit made: [84] Edit reverted: [85] On Amazon: Edit made: [86] Edit reverted: [87] On You Can't Hurry Love: Edit made: [88] Edit reverted: [89] On Wednesday Addams: Edit made: [90] Edit reverted: [91] On Addams Family Values: Edit made: [92] Edit reverted: [93] On Microsoft logos: Edit made: [94] Edit reverted: [95] On Yahoo!: Edit made [96] Edit made [97] Edit made [98] Edit made [99] Edits rejected [100]

I don't know what to think about all these edits. This is not the first time this happens. The last time, I just reverted the bad edits that hadn't been reverted yet. This time, I think it's time to investigate.

Thank you, --TheMillionRabbit 22:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Aw shucks, missed another mass rollback opportunity. IP blocked. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I collapsed the long report, to make the board easier to navigate. Ansh666 09:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking action.--TheMillionRabbit 18:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Dynamic-address IP disrupting to illustrate a point

At The Dakota, a contentious, month-long RfC finally resulted in a consensus to add an a.k.a. name to the famed New York apartment building. Yet one anon IP — alone among every other editor in the debate — refuses to allow this addition to be cited. He's uses several IP addresses, each starting with 69.95, most recently (today) 69.95.62.66, where I will add notification. Others include‎ 69.95.203.93 and 69.95.175.101. He was against the consensus decision, and now is disrupting Wikipedia in response.

As discussed at Talk:The Dakota, he claims adding a footnote to support the alternate name "chang[es] the considered result of the RFC." It seems remarkable that anyone would claim that adding a citation supporting the result of the RfC would be "changing" it. He further claims it would be harmful to the article to cite this alternate name since "it's obvious." If it were obvious, we never would have needed a contentious month-long discussion.

This editor was against including the alternate name, and my impression is that he doesn't want that alternate name cited, so that it will be removed at some later point specifically for being uncited. Whether this is an accurate read or not, it seems surreal that an editor would fight so strongly not to WP:VERIFY a fact that had editors debating its veracity for a month! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sheila Carter Article

Hello! I'm having a dispute with a user named Beaconboof ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Beaconboof&action=edit&redlink=1 ). I've sent them a message. I've also started a discussion on the 'Talk' page of the Sheila Carter article but they've ignored it all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sheila_Carter

It's an article regarding a fictional character named Sheila Carter. The problem is Beaconboof, at some point, filled the latter part of the article as well as the lead & the infobox with viewers speculation, questioning and fans wishes without discussing it at all! I do not always monitor that article, that's why I only very recently found out. All I want is the article to be unbiased, objective and simply resume storylines the way they've played out onscreen.

- 1. What happened is the character of Sheila Carter (The Young & the Restless), a very well know villain, tricked her friend and accomplice Sugar into having plastic surgery to look just like her. Sheila then arranged for Sugar to be committed to some mental institution so everyone would think Sheila was put away and was not a threat. Sugar ended up leaving that facility, then stabbed Scotty 'cause she knew that would hurt Sheila a lot. Sugar got arrested and Lauren Fenmore Baldwin, Sheila's nemesis, realized Sugar was not Sheila 'cause the latter could not walk well at the time.

- 2. In the following scene, the real Sheila was seen at a plastic surgeon's asking him to make her look like a person on a photograph she handed him. Several months later, she came back looking exactly like Phyllis Summers. Actress Michelle Stafford confirmed several times the character she portrayed was Sheila Carter, so did former executive producer and head writer Lynn Marie Latham. Sheila as Phyllis kept acting like the old Sheila and also remembered stuff only the old Sheila and a few others did (taking pictures of Lauren & Brad). Lauren ended up shooting Sheila in self-defense. An autopsy showed it's truly Sheila that got shot.

- 3. Years later, Sheila's never-before heard of sister, Sarah Smythe, showed up in town looking exactly like Lauren Fenmore after cosmetic surgery. Sarah confirmed several times her sister Sheila truly did have surgery to look like Phyllis. Sarah said Phyllis made her think of Sheila. Sarah showed Lauren a picture of herself and Sheila before their surgeries. Sarah also held both Lauren & Phyllis responsible for Sheila's death. As a matter of fact, Sarah tried to kill Phyllis twice but Lauren shot her in self-defense before she could kill Phyllis. Actress Tracey E. Bregman confirmed in an interview Sarah is indeed Sheila Carter's sister and that Daisy Carter & Ryder Callahan are Sheila's children.

This is what played out onscreen and was confirmed by actors, execs and writers. The problem is storylines 2 & 3 weren't well received and accepted by quite some viewers and fans of the Sheila character. Some of them refuse to believe it's Sheila that was made to look like Phyllis and that Sarah was ever her sister. Some of them also refuse to believe Daisy & Ryder are truly Sheila's children with Tom Fisher. Beconboof is one of them and even replaced Sheila's name by the name Pheila in the latter part of the article. The name of the character is Sheila, not Pheila. This is when Becaonboof started making such changes without discussing it first: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sheila_Carter&diff=499017451&oldid=499017269

I have found a solution. Since Beaconboof is not responding and refuses to discuss it on the 'Talk' page, I re-edited the article, once again, so it simply shows the facts as played out onscreen. I then added in a new section called 'Critical Reception' in which I address all of the viewers & fans' concerns, speculations and presumptions (Sheila as Phyllis and Sarah as possible imposters etc.)

I'm trying to be fair! What did Beaconboof do? They've just reverted my edits... Once again, all I want is the article to be unbiased and present what happened onscreen and was confirmed by executive producers, writers and actors. I have taken the time to address concerns, presumptions & speculations by Beaconboof, fans and viewers of the soap opera in a special section of the article but that ain't enough for that editor. They absolutely want the intro, the latter part and the infobox of the article to reflect THEIR PERSONAL disbelief (or disdain) of elements from storylines from 2006 and onward... I've had to revert it again...

One more thing, Beaconboof has recently edited the Daisy Carter article and kept implying Daisy is not truly Sheila Carter's daughter... What do you think? According to the 'Young & The Restless', Daisy IS Sheila's daughter. Period! Why take a fictional storyline so personally? I've just reverted their edits. That's exactly the issue I'm having with that editor; just because they do not like or accept a storyline, they keep editing articles in a biased manner.

As for references, I did not write most of the 'Storylines' section. I've only made minor changes to the '2005-2007' part and added in the '2009-2012' section as well as the 'Critical Reception' segment. I have slightly edited the lead of the article & the infobox so they reflect what was seen onsceen and confirmed, NOT viewers' disbelief etc. All that disbelief is addressed in 'Critical Reception'. I have now added 1 reference: http://www.soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/daisy.php . I wanted to add in this link ( http://soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/sheila.php ) but it's already being used earlier in the article.

Now, see this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Fisher#Storylines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Abbott_Bardwell#Storylines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baldwin#Storylines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Abbott_Fenmore#Storylines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Fenmore#Storylines

I did not write any of the 5 articles above, and none of them use any reference in their 'Storylines' section at all! Soap opera articles on Wikipedia very often lack references in their 'Storylines' sections 'cause it's just viewers that watch the show then type in what they saw. Israell (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a couple of observations here as someone who is not involved. Beaconboof (talk · contribs) has been editing since April 2011, most frequently in the area of soap opera characters, and has been editing the Sheila Carter article since that time. Another thing I noticed about BB's edits is that they have never, ever used a talk page or a notice board, or any other type of discussion. They have never once used an edit summary. This is a silent, uncommunicative editor. This editor is now exhibiting symptoms of article ownership on the article in dispute. I recommend that a short block be issued, for edit-warring or disruption, in order to get this editor's attention. If this editor refuses to discuss collegially with Israell then nothing can be solved. On that note, I will mention to Israell that you should be careful about continuing to edit-war. There are no winners and nothing can be solved there. I am pleased to see that you are taking steps to resolve the dispute at WP:DRN and here. Unfortunately, ANI can do nothing about content disputes and only user behavior. This is somewhat a content dispute, but I think it can be agreed that BB is behaving badly here and that needs to be addressed. Elizium23 (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I am Beaconboof. The reason I have never responded is that I did not know how to do so, or how to use these specific utilities in order to exchange messages. I am sorry that the other user is dissatisfied with my edits. I feel that the writers of Y&R had no true knowledge of the Sheila Carter character from the time they brought Michelle Stafford on to play a version of her. Too many things do not add up and it seems to me that the user Israell is trying to sabotage any chance of Kimberlin Brown returning to her role through his edits. 'Pheila' was NOT confirmed as Sheila and the body was stolen from the morgue, edits that have not been retained. Sarah Smythe was NEVER confirmed as Sheila's sister. These are mere assumptions. I am not behaving badly. I am trying to preserve Bill Bell's legacy character from further desecration. I would ask that my edits be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaconboof (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that both editors involved here have article ownership issues. Israell mentions several times above that they want the article to be this, or they want the article to be that, which shows the symptoms of WP:OWN.

Be that as it may, I know nothing about this soap opera, all I know is that the entirety of the storyline section is completely unsourced. If you can provide reliable sources for what you are claiming, then it goes in. Fan speculation articles, what people think is happening, forums, blogs etc are not reliable sources. So if either of you can get reliable sources for what you're claiming, then it can go in as per WP:Verify. In the meantime I'm tagging them all as unsourced with the plan to delete the entire section if reliable sources can't be located.

I also suggest you both use the article's talk page to discuss this matter instead of bring it here to the administrator's noticeboard, as it is there is no real administrator action needed. Canterbury Tail talk 16:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Beaconboof, your comments above make me strongly inclined to block your account indefinitely. What you've just described is completely inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor. Your purpose here must be only to write neutral encyclopedia articles about notable subjects. Any desires you have about "preserving a legacy" or influencing the casting/scripting decisions at a soap opera should be done via letters to the production company and a personal website. Do you actually want to contribute here neutrally, based on facts in independent sources--note that that does not mean what actually happened on the show, as that's the primary sources here, but sources like show reviews, academic analyses of the show, etc? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, an edit war--that's probably why this happened to come by when I was watching Recent changes. I made an edit or two, unaware of any controversy, though I did note what a bloated bag of fan trivia this was (par for the course in this area, I suppose) and tagged it as such. I have no opinion on the meat of the matter: my admin pay check is not nearly big enough to warrant reading the article and its history. Can't soap editors use Wikia or some such thing to jot down their plot summaries and OR? Drmies (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, what's going on is user Beaconboof doesn't seem to accept the fact the fictional character of Sheila Carter DID have plastic surgery to look like the character of Phyllis Summers Newman. It's exactly what played out onscreen and you can see it all here: http://www.soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/sheila.php . The links says: "Paul Williams managed to track Sheila to Argentina in October 2006 and discovered that she had undergone plastic surgery to look like Phyllis Summers, then had killed the plastic surgeon." I lengthily explained on the 'Talk page' of that article that executive producers, writers and actors all confirmed it's Sheila that had that surgery.

Sheila's body never disappeared from the morgue. That was just a rumor that was never seen on 'The Young & the Restless'. I just asked other viewers just to make sure: http://boards.soapcentral.com/showthread.php?906183-Question-for-Mods-amp-Others-Regarding-Sheila-Carter .

Also, former head writer & executive producer of 'The Young & the Restless' Maria Arena Bell decided to expand Sheila Carter's family and created the characters of Sarah Smythe, Sheila's sister, and Daisy Carter & Ryder Callahan, Sheila's twins with Tom Fisher. You can see it all here: http://www.soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/daisy.php . The link says: "Sarah turned out to be Sheila Carter's sister who had plastic surgery to impersonate Lauren and Daisy and Ryder turned out to be Sheila's twin children."

But user Beaconboof keeps editing the article so it says that Sheila was "believed or presumed" to have surgery to look like Phyllis. They also keep implying Sarah was not truly her sister and that Daisy & Ryder are not truly Sheila's children. It's NOT true. All those things were confirmed and played out onscreen. I'm just trying to have the article reflect exactly what was seen on 'The Young & the Restless' in an unbiased manner.

I understand that Beaconboof and others do not like such storylines and feel the legacy of the Sheila character is being tarnished but that's NOT ME; that's what the writers and executive producers have decided. Beaconboof just admitted he wants the article to reflect his personal dislike of recent storylines, that he feels the writers did not truly understand that character and that he's hoping that Wikipedia article somehow influences a Sheila comeback. I'd love Sheila to come back too but the article should remain unbiased.

Any time I revert such edits (Sheila was "believed" to look like Phyllis etc.) they revert it over and over again... I DO listen to Beaconboof's concerns and that's exactly why I added in the 'Critical Reception' section so I can address the fact several viewers have a big problems with storylines from 2006 and onward and disbelieve the fact Sheila was made to look like Phyllis, Sarah was ever her sister and Daisy & Ryder were ever her twins but Beaconboof keeps adding such speculation elsewhere in the article.

I have added two more sources to the article in the '2010-2012'. It directly concerns the character of Sheila Carter and the possibility she might still be alive. Israell (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Editors, I have now found sources from TV.com as well as the official CBS website and actress Tracey E. Bregman that portrays the role of Lauren Fenmore Baldwin, Sheila Carter's nemesis.

First source says: "Michael is shocked to realize that Paul is holding Phyllis in a cell, and even more surprised to discover that it's really Sheila in there." http://www.tv.com/shows/the-young-and-restless/ep-8549-950242/ - Jan 03, 2007

Second source says: "Daisy finally admits to Lauren that she is Ryder's twin and Lauren realizes who their mom is; Sheila." http://www.cbs.com/shows/the_young_and_the_restless/episodes/41247 - Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Third source says: "Sarah admits to Lauren that she is Sheila's sister". http://www.cbs.com/shows/the_young_and_the_restless/episodes/41369 - Monday, April 12, 2010

Fourth source says: "Kevin realizes that Daisy and Ryder must be twins since she is the same size as Ryder in the old photo. Sarah shows Lauren a photo of Sheila and Sarah “pre-surgery”." http://www.cbs.com/shows/the_young_and_the_restless/episodes/41478 - Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Fifth source says: "I think it’d be too easy to kill Lauren. Sarah really wants Lauren to suffer because Sarah has suffered so much. In Sarah’s mind, Sheila was murdered in cold blood by Lauren. Also, Sarah had to raise Sheila’s children because Sheila was always so obsessed with Lauren that she wasn’t around to raise her kids properly. You can just imagine what it would be like to be in a family with Sheila! Sarah never had any sense of personal power, she never had a real chance in life. So now, in setting up this revenge, she’s finally as powerful as Sheila was. Sarah’s initial goal is to make Lauren suffer by taking her place in her world, and letting her know it. But pretty soon that doesn’t become enough for her." Y&R’s Tracey E. Bregman on her doppleganger storyline! - http://michaelfairmansoaps.com/news/yrs-tracey-e-bregman-on-her-doppleganger-storyline/2010/04/12/

I think that now we have enough proof Sheila Carter did have surgery to look like Phyllis, Sarah is Sheila's sister and that Daisy & Ryder are Sheila's children. Why should the body of the article say or imply otherwise? One last time... The 'Critical reception' section I've added outlines Beconboof and others' suspicions and speculations regarding these storylines but it's not enough for Beaconboof and he's now taking it on me personally!

URGENT: See this on my 'Talk' page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Israell#Sheila_Carter_edits Beconboof is now accusing me of having an agenda, messing with the 'Sheila Carter' Wikipedia article and endangering any chance of Kimberlin Brown to reprise the role of Sheila. Beaconboof wrote: "...reading her wiki page totally endangers the possibility of her getting to play the role again and for what? Some stupid thoughtless stunt storyline.", "I don't know why you are so intent on not wanting Kimberlin back as Sheila - the way you have messed around with her character's wiki page clearly suggests you have an agenda." What do y'all think?

All I did was replace all the "Pheila"s by the actual character name, Sheila, correct some erroneous info, add a few sources as well as the 'Critical reception' section I've mentioned earlier. Israell (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless Beaconboof gives an good explanation and quickly, I'm quite inclined to indef per WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

JPaestpreornJeolhlna going astray

After a more reasonable talk, started by JPaestpreornJeolhlna [101], it went dirty. JPaestpreornJeolhlna did not respond but started insulting and blind reverting. [102]. Ultimately [103]. I propose this user be told what wiki communicating really is about. -DePiep (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

JPaestpreornJeolhlna notified: [104] -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

To start, DePiep removed a helpful note for editors (which is extremely commonly used and placed among many other templates) from the template {{IPAslink}} in this edit. I reverted the edit​, and immediately afterwards, I posted a message on DePiep's talk page informing of the widespread usage of the note that (s)he deleted, to which DePiep's initial response resorted to profanity and ridicule of my username in the first sentence. Following this ridiculous first line, DePiep added that (s)he "had nothing to add", admitting that (s)he merely continued to stand by his/her own opinions. After my reply that this wasn't only a matter of his/her opinion, DePiep ended the section abruptly by completely avoiding any conversation or reasoning, telling me to "go away", and immediately deleting the entire section of the talk page (while, yet again, making fun of my username, calling it "weird name" in the edit summary) in order to cover up all (s)he had said in plain avoidance of the conversation.

I find it extremely hard to believe that I was the one who made this "dirty", as DePiep mentions above, "after a more reasonable talk". Nonsense; DePiep is the one who needs to be taught about communication here (and editing templates as well) . — |J~Pæst|  03:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I propose this one be closed without further ado. I think no wikicrimes are hidden at all. -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe there's a bit of a wikicrime, in your intentionally insulting another user's username, DePiep. Could you please agree to stop doing that? I think you should also not remove longstanding, helpful commentary from templates, though that's a bit more of a content issue than an administrative one. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What about DePiep's edits to the template? Shouldn't they be reverted? — |J~Pæst|  01:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Implicit legal threats and COI on Robinson pages

After three accounts trying to censor these pages and accusations of lawyers creating/editing page, I felt it was time to bring this administrator attention. Pages being edited:

• Robinson R44
• Robinson R22

Accounts involved, in chronological order:

• User:RHC Legal (banned for username)
• User:Robinson watcher (notified)
• User:TD12231972 (notified)

Specific reasons I feel this requires admin attention:

1. see edit reason
2. see edit reason
3. see edit reason
4. see edit reason

Thank you for your time. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted, on the usernames here, that the first (RHC Legal (talk · contribs)) was, as noted, blocked per WP:U; the second, Robinson watcher (talk · contribs), appears to have been abandoned after this comment in favor of the "neutral" TD12231972 (talk · contribs); whether that is a good-faith attempt at neutrality or an attempt to evade COI scrutiny is, of course, a question. As for the removal of content, while some of it it was originally sourced to a COI/non-RS, that part merely needs another source to be added instead of having a section blanked - which, it should be noted, removed valid information as well as the claimed COI-added info, which was only on the R44 article while sections were blanked on both; this is obviously an attempt to whitewash what is considered to be embarassing-to-the-company information. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Burks

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

Would appreciate it if an admin (or any editor) would start this page on my behalf, because I don't have an account to do so. The article already has the AFD text. The reasoning you can include is Non-notable. Does not meet football notability criteria in WP:NGRIDIRON. Never played any games in any professional league.. Thanks. 98.125.193.153 (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Already done by Bongwarrior (talk · contribs). Monty₈₄₅ 04:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. 98.125.193.153 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

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

New user moving user pages of a blocked user

Not sure if this is an issue or something innocent but I just noticed an odd couple of page moves by User:Kose zane Khosrow, specifically of blocked user User:HistoryofIran's user and talk pages to User:Koskesh. Normally I would bring this up with the user but am logging off and won't be able to follow up soon in case it is something problematic. Will notify both users momentarily. N^oformation ^Talk 07:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, HistoryofIran's pages were semiprotected - not sure if this is relevant. N^oformation ^Talk 07:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well now Kose has reverted a revert of vandalism by User:EdJohnston (who also protected the page originally) on the Koskesh user page. Starting to look like trolling. N^oformation ^Talk 07:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Off to the dentist shortly, but I'm not going to AGF, looks like some minor bad edits to boost editing count to get autoconfirmed. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked into this briefly. Isn't HistoryofIran awaiting someone dealing with his unblock request at the moment? It seems like it would be very self-destructive for him to be doing this at the moment. Therefore I'd guess it's one of the following:

1. (I'm guessing pretty likely) This is some other user/troll trying to set HistoryofIran up. Did he have any enemies? Particularly ones who are already blocked?
2. This is HistoryofIran, he doesn't know about CheckUser, and legitimately thinks he can get away with this. Did he ever participate in an SPI before? If so, I'd say this is incredibly unlikely.
3. (Not very likely) This is HistoryofIran, and he doesn't care about getting his main account unblocked.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HistoryofIran. Slightly complicated. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

In view of what can be seen in the revision history of User:HistoryofIran, I have no doubt that Kose zane Khosrow is the person who previously edited from several IP addresses in the 91.99.x.x range, making pointless edits to get autoconfirmed to evade protection of that page. Whether it is also the same person as HistoryofIran I can't say, but in any case Kose zane Khosrow shows no sign of being here for any purpose other than disruption, so I have indefinitely blocked the account. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is HistoryofIran. I think it is another user that HistoryofIran has been in edit dispute with, here and at Commons. I will maybe file a SPI. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

After a more thorough examination I agree the Kose account is just a continuation of the IP. It doesn't seem to me to be HistoryofIran though - that would be pretty bizarre behavior. Thanks for taking care of it. N^oformation ^Talk 00:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The SPI shows Kose is unrelated to HistoryofIran, who is now unblocked but seems to be editwarring. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

User:R.stickler

Will an Amin please look at User:R.stickler's account? He appears to have done very little but cause disruption.

• His edits in February 2013 consisted of an ill-judged accusation that a Cambridge academic was posting copyrighted articles on the Internet.
• His edits in July 2013 consisted of some trivial additions to some articles, which were out of context in those articles. (He had failed to read the article hat notes)
• His edits in September 2013 consisted of personal attacks on User:Boson and myself.

Regardless of whether he is a meat puppet, a sock puppet or whether he has any other motivation, his presence on Wikipedia must be considered disruptive - over 80% of his "contributions" have been personal attacks. Martinvl (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"The WP:DUCK is strong with this one."--v/r - TP 00:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Indef per WP:NOTHERE and as an obvious sockpuppet of someone. The user talk warnings are way out of line, and not something that could be chalked up to an innocent mistake. Probably doesn't even need a discussion prior to a block, but given the lack of warnings, I'll hold off on that personally. Monty₈₄₅ 04:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@Martinvl: Boson, with clearly nothing to hide, gave a clear response. You chose instead to attack me with a collection of misrepresentations of my contributions. My questions to you and Boson were well reasoned and not bad-faith or trivial, please answer in good-faith. R.stickler (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Move help

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

---

Hi. Could i ask a nearby admin to help out at K. D. Singh (politician)? It's at the correct location now, but through a series of moves and cut-and-paste moves the history is at K.D. Singh (politician) (no space between the initials). If i'm in the wrong place for help, sorry; happy to be told where to go (nicely!). Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I moved the article from K.D. Singh (politician) to K. D. Singh (politician). There was no history at K. D. Singh (politician) that needed to be saved. GB fan 10:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to GB fan and JohnCD for those quick responses. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruption by User:Wer900

I'm getting really tired of being insulted and defamed by this user. Every time he has a problem with anything he finds some cheap excuse to drag my name into it. Here's just the latest example [105]. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And here's another thread [106] from a week or two ago where he again dragged my name into a discussion that I had nothing whatsoever to do with. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) also see diff and diff of disruptive editing. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And here's a link to another edit I just found because it was revdeleted, (so, admins only, sorry) in which he tries to drag me into a discussion of a recent arbcom ruling that again, I had absolutely nothing to do with. He has also been involved in a thread on "that other website" where they have been badmouthing me on andf off for about six months. "Harrassment" would be the word i would use for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• For a long while, Wer900 has spent a disproportionate amount of their time on wikipedia casting aspersions on other editors. Away from their content edits on astronomy and the possibility of extraterrestial life, their project space contributions have been problematic. I first became aware of Wer900 when the wikipedia notification process picked up a series of disruptive edits they had made on behalf of an arbcom banned user on User talk:Viriditas.[107][108][109] Wer900 asserted that I had "taken ownership of Poland-related articles." That wholly false assertion—inaccurate enough to be called "stupid"— resulted in an ANI report just three months ago. Wer900's conduct during the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case gave further examples of that kind of editing, directed at other targets. Several of their contributions during the case were removed by arbitrators/clerks and they came close to being blocked. The current report concerns recent malicious and unjustified comments on Resolute. These disruptive personal attacks on others, delivered with great self-assurance and no self-doubt, happen too often. Mathsci (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  ROFL! Well, if it means anything Beeblebrox, I am honoured to be held in as low esteem by Wer900 as he does you. Tells me right away that I must be doing something right. Wer900 is pretty much WP:NOTHERE at this point and he's pretty much cruising to go down the same road KW did. Resolute 02:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And, the icing on the cake, that he is basically trolling Jimbo now as well. "Personal attacks or harrassment" ... where have I seen those words grouped together... some list of things... oh yes, it was standard reasons in the drop down menu for blocking a user. I don't think we need an arbitiration case here, this case is uncomplicated, and WP:HARRASS or WP:NOTHERE or WP:BATTLE would all do nicely as block rationales. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the club Beeblebrox. After I got an editor waging a vendetta kicked off the BLP of his target, he has followed me around WP for years using an alternate bad hand account to make disparaging comments about me on noticeboards, my talk page, and administrative forums. No one has done anything about it even though he hasn't been hiding what he is doing. It seems you administrator types only complain when it happens to you. When it happens to us non-admin schmucks, you could care less. Cla68 (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I was impressed by all the diffs, so I loaded them all into tabs and read them. The baloney is being sliced reaaal thin, so thin you could read a newspaper through it. Synopsis of diffs: using diffs of edits to the same paragraph, which turns one incident into three, using a diff where Beeblebrox insulted Wer900 first, using a diff from May (!), and using multiple diffs from the same discussion. All of these from editor talk pages, where discussion is supposed to be vigorous. No disruption to the job of building an encyclopedia. Pah. You made me look and it was stale cheese. →StaniStani  05:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits making personal attacks on Resolute on a very public wikipedia page precipitated this report. As usual at ANI, if there is a wider picture, other users will comment. Stanistani's comments are not even vaguely helpful. That could be because he is editing on behalf of a site-banned editor.[110] Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As for the diffs I presented myself, they show a pattern of Wer mentioning my name in a series of discussions over the last several months. Not one of those discussions actually had anything to do with me, Wer just mentions me each time as an example of a horrible, corrupt admin. I defy anyone to say that's ok and we should just let users act like that. It's inexcusable and indefensible. We have dispute resolution processes for a reason. If he, or anyone else, wants to have a conversation about how horrible I am they are free to turn this link blue and we can have that discussion instead of just sniping at me from afar. If i am really so horrible, surely others will line up to endorse the validity of his concerns and whatever evidence he has of wrongdoing on my part. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I have no real complaint about Wer900's comments directed at me, other than to note my amusement at how he and his cohorts dish it out a hell of a lot better than they take it. But it is often true that those most willing to criticize/attack are least willing to accept criticism in return. Wer900 themselves has been in full conspiracy theory mode for some time now, and I take their commentary within that context. Which is to say, I was not aware that working away in the glamourous world of hockey player articles was "the right cabal". Resolute 14:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care about them much as individual remarks either and i doubt anyone gives Wer's conspiracy ranting about cabals much credence, but, what bothers me is the pattern of repeatedly bringing up my name in discussions that have noting whatsoever to do with me, as his go-to example of a terrible person and abusive admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I edit here, at this moment, on behalf of myself. I noticed Occam's post, but do not advocate on his behalf, any more than my response to him in other topics is on your behalf, you being a banned user there. Don't create bogus diffs. People might click on them. →StaniStani  19:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as bans go, my understanding is that Occam, who approached Wer900 on wikipediocracy in late May to start an RfAr about me, has not been successful in having his arbcom site-ban lifted. Stanistani is ignoring any problems with Wer900's edits. But in that case, why comment at all? Mathsci (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, quite recently, Wer900 made edits right here at ANI that were quite similar to those cited by Mathsci. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive809#A new accusation, he announced that he and the currently-blocked Viriditas had determined the real-life identity of another editor, and it was oh so very bad. At Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Genetically Modified Food Controversies, it all turned out to be a lot of garbage. But I do note that Wer900 did apologize subsequently. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize unreservedly to jytdog for that incident. However, I have evidence on others, which I believe (in my best judgment, after the jytdog incident) to be unshakeably sound, including one self-identification. I digress, though; Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), you have gone beyond the pale with this. You have been hounding me for the better part of a year now, I think, if not more, and are slowly inching towards the proverbial topic-ban button for me (I think you know what I'm talking about, I don't want to bring it up here). You are following the classic AN/I-dweller's technique—posting a large number of "teh diffz" in order to "conclusively demonstrate" that I am a "disruptive" individual, all the while ignoring the context of one of my statements.

Sure, my changing of the hatnote on Jimbo's page was "disruptive". But wasn't Jimmy Wales's systematic (WARNING: SITE IZ TEH BAD) hatting and deletion of critical comments even more so, especially given that Jimbo seems to "hold court" on his talk page? Moreover, aunva6 (talk · contribs) deleted my statement against Resolute (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), which was not "disruptive", merely critical. Why was that done? If no coherent answer can be given, then I ask that that particular comment be restored to its rightful place.

I see more at work here, Beeblebrox. You are attempting to divert attention from Wikipedia's failings and channel it into cultic worship of yourself, your friends, and Jimmy Wales. If you want to take this to ArbCom for a show trial, then you will prove that that committee is nothing but the high priesthood of Wikipedia, performing sacrifice of critics and sending them to the Wikipediocracy netherworld. Wer900 • talk 04:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I was tempted to reply to this, until I realized that Wer900's unadorned words were more damning to his reputation that anything I could possibly say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• User:Wer900 has to be joking if he's hoping for this to be taken to Arbcom. There's enough here for an indefinite block without any further ado.WP:NOTHERE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• I obviously agree, but in the interest of giving Wer one more chance to actually explain themselves instead of just spoutiong conspiracy theories, I wonder if he would care to comment on why he brought up my name twice in discussions of the Keifer Wolfowotz/Ironholds arbcom case and once in a discussion on Jimbo's talk page about the child protection policy? What connection is there between myself and either of those discussions? Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)—tell me what content work you have done for the encyclopedia; in your honest opinion, do you think that it is enough to qualify you for a position of power on Wikipedia? Regarding Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds, I commented on you because you were brought up as a potential party and because you are an administrator I have found, many times, to be crass, abusive, and undeserving of power, not unlike Ironholds (talk · contribs) himself. To the others, you are merely opportunists who have decided to jump on to the dogpile. Kudpung (talk · contribs), I do not wish to bring this case to the Arbitration Committee—as a word of future advice, taking the time to read a comment can lead to greater enlightenment on the issues it discusses.

    And to all, remember that my statement on Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s talk page was in response to (administrator) Resolute (talk · contribs)'s comment about "attention whores" disliking email because it does not give them the "attention hit" that they purportedly "need". Resolute's statement, like your own presentation of this AN/I, Beeblebrox, is nothing more than a perversion of the facts through the elimination of context— Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs), the clear object of Resolute's ire, used a public forum to voice his concerns about Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs) only after ArbCom tacitly made clear its laconic approach to child protection by failing to respond to his emails in any substantive fashion. Furthermore, Resolute's comment constituted blatant degradation of an individual; with that in mind, why aren't you submitting administrator Resolute to the same extraordinary tribunal you have created for an ordinary editor like me? Is Resolute beyond policy? Isn't justice supposed to be blind? Wer900 • talk 23:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  • With regard to my "disruption" on Jimbo's talk page, I changed the hatnote on one of the statements in order to highlight his instinct to hide any uncomfortable comments. This is entirely incongruous with the image of a "constitutional monarch" "hold[ing] court" on his talk page. I linked a Wikipediocracy article, of my own writing, about Jimmy Wales's talk-page deletions (in the present case, of a lively, vigorous, and candid discussion), but apparently the light of truth is too bright for you. I hope that is not indeed the case. Wer900 • talk 23:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you can't even be bothered to log in anymore demonstrates (to me at least) your impatience to leave yet another TL;DR rant. You appear to possess such an antipathy for Wikipedia I suggest you go and leave your comments on your beloved Wikipediocracy because what you are doing here and over the rest of Wikipedia is purely a drain on our resources to have to read through all your screeds and personal attacks. A preventative indef block would be the best solution for Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I was about to say something critical about Wer900's edits, but then I read this moronic statement, full of textbook smug admin bullshit, and decided that Kudpung and his ilk are probably bigger dangers to WP than Wer900. Can't do anything about it though, cloaked as he is in his admin invincibility cloak.

Wer900, stop dragging Beeblebrox's name through the mud in threads unrelated to him, or you'll be blocked. It's unfair, uncool, and unproductive. If you have a complaint, use RFC/U or ArbCom or something. Otherwise, complain about WP in general, not about one admin you're pissed at in particular. And please remember to log in, or some moron will start screaming "sockpuppet!". --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Floquenbeam. Regarding Beeblebrox, I'm not "dragging his name through the mud". I've taken crap from him several times in the past, and decided, by analogy, to compare him to Ironholds in the recent ArbCom case (incidentally, there was a discussion about adding Beeblebrox as a party, but that ended up in nothing). More recently, on the talk page of Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), I drew attention to his massively hypocritical User:Beeblebrox/fuck off essay, which he disingenuously tried to brush off (Canens eventually deleted the entire thread because it criticized him, too. Beeblebrox deleted his essay, though he still appears to reserve the right to tell people to fuck off).

Kudpung (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), you have no right to critique my actions. You are typical of admins, focusing only on the meta-details surrounding the post I made—the fact that I didn't log in (that was due to an incidental lack of cookies on that computer, in case you must know)—and having the audacity to state that I am WP:NOTHERETOBUILDANENCYCLOPEDIA when you yourself have only 27% of edits in article space and 19% automated edits via Huggle. Again, reading my statements and my grievances is key. It is you and your ilk who are not here to build an encyclopedia, but merely to argue, debate, and create drama. Furthermore, it is evident that you have heard nothing about loyal opposition—the (anyway moronic) assertion that Wikipedia is not a democracy does not mean that it is a dictatorship of power players. I support the aims of Wikipedia, but would like it to have nothing to do with you and your friends. Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs), you are using the same WP:ICANTHEARYOU tactics as Kudpung is using, and like him you are also feigning anger and disgust.

Floquenbeam, I suggest you get out of here. You are going to be confronted by the same persons who are confronting me, and you will systematically be mistreated and driven out of the encyclopedia you helped to build by these self-serving administrators. Wer900 • talk 01:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You continue to do an excellent job of making yourself look foolish, in fact, ridiculous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, in all honesty, I'm in favor of Wer900 being blocked permanently if they won't stop dragging Beeblebrox around everywhere possible. A solution might be either a Wer900 stays away from Beeblebrox in all forms, or Wer900 gets blocked. 173.55.185.222 (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Unsurprisingly, the answer to my direct question was more nonsense, with no supporting evidence. I don't see any reasonable way to reply to this continued defamation and harrassment other than a block of Wer, which I hope is forthcoming in the near future. Of course, if I actually was a member of an all-powerful cabal that would have happened already... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• You are not being harassed or defamed. He brings you up because you are a high-profile admin with a reputation for being ill-tempered and domineering. Perhaps you should consider why said reputation persists and contemplate ways to improve it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how much of the the above comment was influenced by those Wikipediocracy goats. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 01:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol, "goats"! Honestly, the whole "I reserve the right to say fuck off if you annoy me" thing kind of speaks for itself as to why he might have a bad reputation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Remember that time you threatened me with a topic-ban, Beeblebrox? That also kind of speaks for itself. So does this and the "Fuck off" essay mentioned earlier. And this. And this. Wer900 • talk 03:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahha! There it is. I was trying to figure why you had such a grudge against me, thanks for clarifying that this all goes back to that. what was the issue again? As I recall you were rapidly re-submitting proposals for some sort of formal government structure loosely based on the same seperation of powers used in the U.S. federal government, and I said if you kept doing it I would... what, uh , ask the community if it might want to topic ban you? Something like that. And.. what, you've held on to your anger over that all this time, and done research into what a jerk I am, and these links are all you've got? seriously? Well, you tried again to make this about me instead of you. Anybody convinced by those links that I am a horrible ogre and an abusive admin? Please, look at at them and behold the infernal horrors I hath wrought. It's truly terrifying. Goodbye Wer, whatever happens I don't think I shall waste my time communicating with you ever again, but it has been mildly interesting. Best of luck in your future endeavors. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn in favor of IBAN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposed block of User: Wer900 Ugh, back from break and this is the first thing I see? Clearly a block would be in order on grounds of the WP: SOCKing alone, among more disturbing offenses. Before things get even uglier, I propose that Wer be blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia, per WP: TE, WP: NOTHERE and WP: IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Support As proposer. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Comment by accused: I didn't "sock", I just forgot to log in. Nowhere in hell could my use of the IP, clearly referring to myself, have been an attempt to sway opinion unduly. I have taken ownership of the comments here under that IP, so your socking accusation is moot. Wer900 • talk 01:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Clearly you can see I struck that "accusation". The other points still stand. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Der Kommisar (talk · contribs): Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has reported me for refusing to cease and desist in criticizing his demeanor as an admin. I had taken shit from him in the past, and then transformed that experience into analogies in the Ironholds case and later ones, using comparison. Beeblebrox, the abusive administrator, was used merely as an example of an administrator who had special power and protection. While you're at it, why don't you just name him as a member of the Illuminati, an agente of the CIA, and the leader of the Mafia. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 05:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Strong oppose as silly and excessive.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Support per Wer900's latest rant above (in response to Floquenbeam), in which it's pretty clear Wer900 doesn't understand (or refuses to understand) why their behaviour is problematic. The WP: IDIDNTHEARTHAT is strong in this one. For what it's worth, I don't consider the IP edits to be socking, as it doesn't appear to be an attempt to imitate another user. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Support - I believe this fracas has gone on long enough, after reading more data regarding the incidents. 173.55.185.222 (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC) **Whoever you are, why is it that your sole two edits are to this AN/I? That *totally doesn't* look suspicious. Wer900 • talk 03:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC) The guy who keeps complaining that there are different rules for different users wants to discount someone's opinion because they are an IP from Verizon and probably get automatically assigned a new IP every time they log in. Nothing ironic there... Beeblebrox (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC) That's three edits, and my (now three) sole edits are to AN/I because that Is all I have to say. I speak when I wish to speak, I wished to speak at this AN/I. Once what I wish to speak is spoken, I shall be silent. Simple logic. 173.55.185.222 (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Comment rescinded. Obvious support per WP:NOTHERE. Wer's comments are being stage-managed for him by other users at an offsite forum, and he still comes across like an angry, unreasonable troll who seems completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that it was not appropriate to harrass me in the manner he has been. If I were the only target of this nonsense I (and maybe the community) might not care all that much but pretty much all he does is deliberately agitate other users, up to and including Jimbo. This is simply not the correct approach to trying to actually solve a perceived problem, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC) So a police officer gets to act like a juror? What is this madness? You make further disingenuous statements; my comments are not being "stage-managed" at all; other users saw my case and commented of their own accord, at least as much of their own decision as Kudpung's and Beyond my Ken's decisions to go against me. Is any criticism now considered "harassment"? Has the doctrine of loyal opposition been revoked? I would like to work with you productively, but your demeanor on this forum has not been conducive to that at all. Wer900 • talk 03:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC) (ec with below) You need to get over your terrible analogies. I am neither a police officer nor a juror, merely a member of this community who is being harassed.. by you. You get all on your high horse about my "fuck off" essay, when you are acting far more nasty and out of line than someone who just feels like sometimes, when someone is being a persistent, deliberate, pain in the ass, it is ok to tell them to fuck off. I don't know why I am even replying to you as it is obvious you are determined to stay the course, which suits me fine because, as others have noted, every time you speak you make yourself look worse, not me. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Beebs, stop claiming harassment and go learn the meaning of the term. You are insulting actual victims of harassment by continuing to count yourself among them. Some random person on the Internet mentioning your behavior several times as an example of the problems with this site is not harassment.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Support - When an editor under sanction consideration has significant contributions to the project, it's always a balancing act to decide if the degree of disruption is worth the improvement to the encyclopedia. In this case, Wer900's POV regarding Wikipedia is so clearly off the deep end, that the degree of disruption we've seen to this moment (which is not insignificant) is obviously only a tiny harbinger of what will come. Given this, it's not worthwhile to allow him to continue editing, as he is a net-negative right now, and will only get worse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC) With all due respect, Beyond My Ken, this is not the House Un-American Activities Committee. My membership at Wikipediocracy does not indicate any particular viewpoint on Wikipedia; our members run the gamut from Arbitrators to Gregory Kohs. As for me, I support Wikipedia and its goal of bringing free knowledge to the world, but do not believe that the separate-but-equal system enshrined here is beneficial for it or any of its members, and only find it to be helpful for a small group of power users. I have put up examples of Beeblebrox's abuse; this is a directory to yet more examples of his failings. I tried to refrain from posting too many diffs in order to reach concord with Beeblebrox, but if he wants to rub salt into old wounds, then I must do that. Moreover, why hasn't a tribunal of this sort been set up for Resolute (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)? His comment about "attention whores" is merely the tip of the iceberg of his incivility. If you want to try me here, then you must try Resolute. Heck, why don't you try Jimmy Wales for a blatant misrepresentation of his "open door" policy that I pointed out earlier? Is he now above policy too? I came here to write about astrophysics and astrobiology, and found the governance of this site lacking. I made some comments and proposals here and there about it, but you have decided to drag me into the depths of Wikipedia drama. If you don't want me to be "harassing" you, then stop bringing me into frivolous cases like this one. Wer900 • talk 04:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Wer900, I have only ever read one article on Wikipediocracy, and it wasn't by you, so I don't know what you're on about with that remark. My conclusions about your behavior and attitude are fueled entirely by your behavior right here on Wikipedia, and what I see is not "respect" for the project, but complete disdain for everything except your own very warped POV about it. (And, BTW, I'm not "feigning" my opinions, which you accused me of above, I honestly think that you are a danger to the project and should be indef blocked.) That's the last response I'll make to anything you post here, so please enjoy your free bite of the apple: make it good and cranky, please, so it'll be obvious to even more people why we don't need you here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Support some type of block or sanction until Wer900 develops a modicum of WP:CLUE and shows some recognition of the problems he has been causing. His project space/public pronouncements are out of control at the moment. One editor removed his hatting and attacks on Resolute and Beeblebrox on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Before that, AGK removed Wer900's finding about Flutternutter and Ironholds from the workshop page of the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds arbcom case. It is this kind of highly inflammatory stirring, usually irrelevant and often offensive and highly inappropriate, that is the problem. His content contributions to astronomy and extraterrestial life-forms (a topic not in urgent need of editors) do not outweigh this disruption. Mathsci (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose - Pretty clearly yet another attempt to sacrifice a victim for a bountiful corn harvest. What ever happened to the good old fashioned interaction ban? The topic ban? Nope, straight to crazy-eyed lynch mob howling for blood... Glorious. This is a productive editor (astronomy) who has dipped his toe in the drama tank rather too frequently in the past month. Measured response, please. Carrite (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Interaction ban with who? Beeblebrox? Jimbo? Resolute? Kupdung? All admins except the chosen few? The "cabal"? Anyone he decides is against him or whose "governance" of Wikipedia is lacking? Topic ban from what? Jimbo's talk page? All talk pages? Wikipedia space? Everything except astronomy and exobiology? Practical solutions, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC) See below. Jimmy Wales can take care of his own page. Carrite (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose. Unless Wer900 were to repeatedly present false evidence at AN, AN/I (or ArbCom but then ArbCom can handle that themselves). Quite a few editors (including myself) have experienced far worse things than what Beeblebrox is experiencing and when that happened were told that we should just get used to it. This despite that this typically did have consequences (like being blocked because of false rumors or otherwise restricted). In this case, given the balance of power, whatever Wer900 is saying can be ignored by Beeblebrox. He just has to say once that Wer900 is talking nonsense and he doesn't have to bother anymore. Count Iblis (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Support. Complaints should be brought to the appropriate venue. This isn't a complaint, this is a campaign of harassment. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose. Not close to being necessary, at least yet. Also, going from a clean block log to an indefinite block is a pretty drastic escalation. However, Wer900 does need to calm down. If he continues like this he might soon merit a short block, like 24 hours, for disruptive editing or personal attacks. Cardamon (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC) The purpose of a block is to prevent disruption. If a user refuses to acknowledge that there are problems with their behavior, which you seem to concede is the case, a 24 hour block is only going to prevent that behavior for 24 hours. An indef block does not mean blocked forever, just until such time as they can manage to own up to their own problems and give some indication of how they would prevent similar issues in the future. Escalating blocks are appropriate for other issues such as edit warring, but I don't think they are the right remedy for a problem like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC) The problem with this approach is that it leads to crazy situations. E.g. You asked Coren to block me because of a dispute about a proposal which is now an essay. Just because I didn't see things your way, you called that continued disruption and you asked for intervention. Count Iblis (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose. Sure Wer900 can be a bit strident, and he tends to stay focused on a perceived imperfection a bit too long, but looking at the parade of personalities on this very page, I'm not convinced he's any more block-worthy than the rest of us. Wer900, lay off mentioning Beeblebrox. Holster your towel. Relax and have a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. For the rest of youse: If Wer900 is blocked over apparently being a misguided crusader, it won't look good that some of the case (see above) is cooked up from low-quality evidence. →StaniStani  02:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC) As Newyorkbrad pointed out,[111] this edit of Wer900[112] criticized Timotheus Canens' arbcom voting using the language of racial segregation. Without evidence, Wer900 also accused Timotheus Canens of operating meatpuppets to rig arbcom elections. Those kinds of statement are unacceptable. Warped or evasive arguments will not alter that. Harassment and bullying (including outing or threats of outing) might be part of the ethos of wikipediocracy, but please, Stanistani, don't try to import it over here on wikipedia. There is no need for references to crusaders/martyrs/whistleblowers, when this is just a question of trolling edits. The diffs of Wer900's edits speak for themselves: they cannot be dismissed as "low-quality evidence". Mathsci (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC) While I do think that Wer900 has gone a bit overboard with some of these accusation, ArbCom and some Admins have in the past engaged in underhand dealings. It's a bit similar to e.g. the US making accusations about Iran's nuclear program, this is also not all supported by evidence. But then according to the US, Iran cannot be trusted because of its past behavior leading to Iran not getting the benefit of the doubt. ArbCom and some high profile Admins who have been involved in AE will similarly not always get the benefit of the doubt from all editors here because of a similar cloud hanging over this system. Count Iblis (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC) I'd just like to note that it is the last holiday weekend of the summer season here in the states and it may be easier to see a consensus one way or the other once it is over. And on that note I am opening a delicious bottle of locally-made mead and checking out for a day or two. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC) support, but perhaps an indef is a bit extreme. I say a month to a year, and then let WP:noose handle the rest. per WP:TE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:Harassment, and WP:BATTLE . the user has had several troublesome iteraction issues previouslly. however, NOTHERE doesn't appear to me to apply to this. wer has made quite a few good contributions to articles, from waht I can see of his contribs. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 07:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC) indef after all, indelfinite isn't permanent, just undefined. the standard offer and noose cover unblocks well. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC) The thing is, an indef block doesn't necessarily have to be for even as long as a month or a year. I think that Wer900 just needs to get hold of himself, calm down, and gain a little perspective of how he's been behaving. Once that happens, and he can say to the community "I shouldn't have done that, and I'll try my best not to do it again" he can be unblocked -- and how long that takes is totally up to him. It could take a week or less, or a month or something in between - that's the beauty of the indef block, it allows for a response to the specific situation, and doesn't set a hard and fast totally artificial number. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC) You know and I know and we all know that indefs of perceived "enemies of the people" (vragi naroda, a Stalinist term) are permanent. Once indef blocked there will be a ready chorus to keep blocked, and that's the way that story ends. No, not quite. What this does in the long run is create embittered "to the death" style warriors out of disaffected, sometimes-productive editors. Some of the inner core of The Site That Can Not Be Mentioned have received just this sort of treatment. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Of course, the drama fans on both sides love this because it assures perpetual new chapters in the soap opera so they can play instead of working on an encyclopedia... Carrite (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Your lack of AGF is ... astounding, and the assumptions you are making about editors' motivations show a disconcertingly battlegroundish orientation. Not everything is about Wikipediocracy, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Support - for some sort of limited block or ban, pretty much per MathSci. The behavior of this editor is clearly problematic and unacceptable. But we have a history of being a bit lenient on such matters, whether I really like that or not. Should the problematic conduct continue after the block ends, of course, then sterner steps, probably including at least consideration of a site ban, would be reasonable and called for. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Oppose - There doesn't seem to be enough evidence, some of the evidence is speculation, from the earliest accusations there were clearly two or three people involved with personal attacks, there is evidence of warlike behaviour from some accusers and there is evidence of possible long term history between the users. If anything, all three of them are guilty. The accuser, the accused and the "witness" who bared testimony. Greengrounds (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Oppose per Cardamon and Stanistani. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Oppose As per ~  TUXLIE  11:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Oppose Per Carrite and others. Frankly I find the whole rush to silence any discussion of issues with Wikipedia disturbing. Very disturbing. Intothatdarkness 14:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC) If all Wer was doing was discussing general issues with WP we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. What he is doing is repeatedly insulting specific users in multiple threads without actually attempting to resolve whatever issues he has with them. Not the same thing at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC) That's your view, of course, which is fine. I see it somewhat differently, hence my oppose. Intothatdarkness 15:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC) So picking another user and deciding to mention their name in every discussion of what is wrong with Wikipedia without ever attempting to actually address the perceived problem directly is how we are going to do things now? You wouldn't mind if every time a disruptive editor was under discussion I chimed in with "that remonds me of Intothatdarkness, another useless user who needs to just leave"? That would seem ok to you? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC) My governance models, and now my membership and work for Wikipediocracy, are meant to "actually address the perceived problem directly"; don't accuse me of not doing that. And frankly, Beebs, I wouldn't care if I was spoken about negatively a few times here and there—for all I know, Teh IRC™ hates me with a vengeance. What I really don't like is the numerous false accusations put out by your side on this AN/I; you know what you've done. Wer900 • talk 03:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Please explain more carefully what your "work for Wikipediocracy" entails? How exactly does editing in project space on behalf of site-banned editors like Captain Occam figure in your plans? It is you that are offending others by unjustified finger-pointing, not the other way round. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Oppose as unnecessary, especially now that an involved party undid a close by an uninvolved party; shameless. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Oppose per Carrite - Interaction ban = Problem bloody solved!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Close

Note, I closed the above discussion as no consensus; despite the fact that there had not been a new supporter of the block in nearly 3 days, Mathsci, having already expressed support for the proposed block, reverted the close stating premature conclusion. Monty₈₄₅ 14:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have made a private request to arbitrators to clarify the claim of Wer900 on-wiki and Captain Occam off-wiki that AGK gave permission to Wer900 to initiate an arbcom case on behalf of Captain Occam. I understand that this is being discussed at the moment. My feeling is that Wer900 has been misled and lacks the experience to see matters clearly. I was and still am ambivalent about an indefinite block, since my view is that Wer900's edits at the moment seem to be confused. In the circumstances, it does no harm to wait for informal clarification from arbitrators. Mathsci (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Close by non-involved admin restored. NE Ent 01:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• NE Ent attempted to close the above discussion. NE Ent, however, is involved and has a serious conflict of interest regarding WP:ARBR&I-related processes. Earlier in the year he acted on multiple occasions as apologist for the disruption-only account Akuri (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). NE Ent did this pesistently when it was clear that there were problems with IP hopping before the account Akuri was registered. (There were two range blocks by Future Perfect at Sunrise and Timotheus Canens.) After a while, it became clear that that account's only purpose was to continue a campaign of disruption through arbcom processes, indistinguishable from that of Captain Occam. The account was blocked indefinitely by arbitrators with user talk page access revoked. In this case Captain Occam actively lobbied Wer900 concerning his campaign and is doing so now. Please could NE Ent not intervene in what are very similar circumatances, while a response is being awaited from arbitrators? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Do us all a favor and let it go. Carrite (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Since an arbitrator is apparently consulting arbcom over whether Wer900 was given permission to start an arbcom case on Captain Occam's behalf (an unbelievable claim), it seems sensible to wait for a response, rather than stifling discussion. Most wikipedians had the good fortune not to be dragged into an endless chain of meritless arbcom requests in the second half of 2012: most of them could be traced back to Captain Occam. So this is a good opportunity to nip things in the bud.

Concerning the original complaint of Beeblebrox, I agree that there is consensus neither for an indefinite block nor for a one-way IBAN + stern warning. (Personally at this point I think a very stern warning might be all that is needed.) The previous section can be archived; but this subthread should be left open. Mathsci (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci, there's no consensus, and there's never going to be. Personally, I don't think Wer900 is being constructive at all, with their constant on-wiki abuse (they've got WO to vent, after all, so there's no need to constantly do so on-wiki) but I've refrained from voting as I don't know what the best solution would be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not only that, those who keep reverting the close also seem to be involved. That smacks of "keep it open until we get the result we want." That's not a constructive solution, either. Intothatdarkness 13:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal: Proposed interaction ban of User: Wer900

User:Wer900 is hereby warned in no uncertain terms that the community's patience is wearing very thin and that future accusatory disruption or battleground behavior is apt to be dealt with harshly. In addition, User:Wer900 is hereby subjected to an interaction ban with User:Beeblebrox: he is not to refer to Beeblebrox directly or indirectly in any thread on Wikipedia, to respond to comments made by Bebblebrox in any thread on Wikipedia, to communicate with Beeblebrox directly or indirectly on Wikipedia or by email, or to link to off-Wiki comments about Beeblebrox made by Wer900 or any other person. Violation of this unidirectional interaction ban shall bring a block of no less than 30 days. Carrite (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer. Carrite (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  What about Kudpung and Resolute? What about Timotheus Canens? Wer900 made a prolonged and unprovoked attack on him.[113] These are problems Wer900 has with mutliple users, many of them administrators. Your solution does not address these problems. Mathsci (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe it you read it again slowly, it does address these things. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Wer900 does not seem to have acknowledged that there are problems. So your proposal—a warning and a one-way IBAN with one particular administrator—does not seem to go far enough. Perhaps he might develop a little more self-awareness: that would certainly change things. Mathsci (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• No real need to include me I was offended neither by his comments on Jimbo's talk page, nor by his obsession with me here. Though I did find it amusing that I kept getting pinged in this thread by him when I had long since moved on and was, you know, writing articles. Resolute 20:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If i thought an interaction ban would solve anything I would support it. And perhaps it would solve the problem with Wer harassing me, but in order to make it broad enough to stop all his unacceptable behaviors he would pretty much have to be banned from doing anything besides editing articles as everything else he does is disruptive. Of course I also strongly object to the proposer's comments in the above section, this is not a crazy-eyed lynch mob looking for a victim, Wer brought this upon himself entirely through his own actions. Only he has the capacity to demonstrate that he has some modicum of self control and can attempt to resolve whatever disputes he may feel he has in a more acceptable manner and he has shown absolutely no indication that he even believes there is a problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, you are not being harassed. Bringing you up a few times as an example of an admin who can be seriously uncivil without consequences as contrasted with regular editors who are dealt with harshly for even minor acts of incivility is not harassment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Try to look at it from the recieving end. Let's say every week or so when you logged in you got an echo notification saying I mentioned you somewhere. Curious, you click on it only to discover that in the middle of a discussion of an issue in which you have zero involvement or interest there is a comment from me saying "TDA is the perfect example of a terrible contributor to Wikipedia and he should just leave." You might ignore that if it only happened once, but what if it was happening about once a week, yet I was not pursuing any sort of direct conversation with you or trying to engage in dispute resolution, just bringing you up once in a while to let everyone know that I think you are an asshole. (I don't think that actually, but just for purposes of this discussion let's say that's what it is) How would you feel? Remember now, you are not involved in these discussions. You are not even aware of them. Your name has not previously come up. We are not currently engaged in any sort of dispute or other discussion whatsoever. I did not invite you to participate, you just get an echo notification letting you know I am insulting you without provocation again. How would you feel? Like I was trying to solve a problem, or like I just wanted to let everyone, including you, get a once-a-week reminder that I think you are an asshole? That my friend, is indeed harassment. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No, actually it is not. Even if the complaints were not legitimate as they are here, someone talking shit about you every now and then to other people is not the same as harassment. You are cheapening the meaning of the term "harassment" by using it to describe this situation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

We believe in escalating blocks at Wikipedia, do we not? Carrite (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

After writing that I checked. Wer has a completely clean block log. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Not sufficient per my comments above, and per Mathsci's comment in this section. When a single user has consistent difficulties interacting civilly with multiple editors, an I-Ban concerning only one of those editors is logically not the best response, as it only addresses one portion of the problem, and, further, assumes that the interaction problems are mutual and not originating primarily from one side. Wer900's comments in this very report are more than enough to establish that he is the locus of the problem, and therefore the solution needs to be more general, and focused on that user only. I might support a "reverse topic ban" which restricts Wer900 to editing only in the astronomy and exobiology areas, since his disruption to the project seems to be occurring only on talk pages and in Wikipedia space, but that's as far as I'm willing to go away from an indef block, so my !vote in the section above stands for the moment, and I favor an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support broad IBAN: Support unidirectional interaction ban in interacting with Beeblebrox, Jimbo Wales, Resolute, Kudpung, Beyond my Ken. Or at least a strongly worded suggestion that he ceases to engage them. For reasons of WP:ROPE this effort seems prudent rather than a straight out block. I would suggest that if a further unidirectional interaction ban is required at some future time that it would indicate that it is time to cut our losses. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Supporting newer proposal, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• • Such a unidirectional ban would merely allow these editors to continue to torment me in the same way that I have (purportedly) "harassed" Beeblebrox. All editors involved in this dispute should be placed under a mutual probation, whereby their interactions are monitored by an outside administrator. As for the citation of the essay "Give 'em enough rope", are you serious? You have no right to embellish its citation to make it look like policy, because it is an essay and especially because one of the primary writers is none other than Beeblebrox himself.

    In response to Beeblebrox's comment on my evidence—I do not hold a "grudge" against you. I am not following the usual psychology of AN/I dwellers. More than once have I seen your gross incompetence with the tools, and hence I have identified you several times as an example of a bad administrator.

    On my "obsession with Resolute", why is the AN/I madhouse not submitting him to a show trial for his not-so-veiled branding of Kiefer.Wolfowitz as an "attention whore", while I am receiving one for comments in response? Why does an administrator party to the dispute get special treatment?

    There isn't much more I have to say. Wer900 • talk 19:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

    • I see no need for Wer900 to have a unidirectional interaction ban in regard to myself. I cannot recall ever interacting with him in the past, and the give and take in this discussion is hardly sufficient to justify an i-ban. I continue to see the value in an indef block of his account, until he learns that framing discussions with other editors in terms of "show trials" and throwing around phrases like "gross incompetency" while simultaneously refusing to use the mechanism we have in place to address such alleged behaviorial problems (i.e. RFC/U and then ArbCom) is disruptive and not condoned here. His argument that his harrassment of Beeblebrox (yes, TDA, "harrassment" is indeed the correct word, stop being so unnecessarily pedantic) should be answered by a "probation" of everyone who has called him on his behavior is totally ridiculous, and a pretty good indication that W900 has absolutely no perspective on what he is doing. Such perspective can frequently be regained through an enforced time-out, which is why an indef block (which can be as short as it takes for W900 to regain his equilibrium) is the best option here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Nothing pedantic about it. You have no understanding of "harassment" if you think someone saying bad things about another person behind the person's back is harassment. When the girls at the salon gossip about Miss Susan and her promiscuous ways, they are not harassing her any more than any person talking shit behind your back is harassing you. This is just another instance of a long line of controlling egocentric personalities on Wikipedia feeling that any repeated criticism of them is harassment and said personalities tend to be the most malicious harassers in the bunch.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • Interesting, Wer900. Given it was the anon IP that I was calling an attention whore, should I take your statement as an admission that it was KW evading his ban? Resolute 02:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
      • You know the broader context in which your comment was made, Resolute; yours was a thinly veiled attack against Kiefer.Wolfowitz, even if the anon was not Kiefer. Nobody thinks that your comment was not directed toward the most recently banned prominent child-protection whistleblower. Your ridiculous assertion that the anon is Kiefer is truly Kafkaesque™. Wer900 • talk 16:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
        • These statements about Resolute are not based on evidence (one edit about an anonymous IP posting on a highly visited WP page). Nobody has so far agreed with your hunches, which are just prejudiced personal attacks. An RfAr is certainly not the way forward.[114] Mathsci (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
          • The arbcom banned user Captain Occam has given Wer900 more advice over on wikipediocracy.[115] As Wer900 disclosed on-wiki, Captain Occam asked him in May 2013 to start an RfAr about me. Since 2010 Captain Occam has engaged in editing through others to continue a campaign of harassment, which included his request to Wer900 and later included outing. Captain Occam has now suggested that an RfAr is advisable to handle Beeblebrox and "the other problematic users who are involved" ... There are no prizes for guessing what that might mean. It is a much better idea for Wer900 to follow Carrite's advice and to ignore Captain Occam and his enablers. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC) As predicted Captain Occam has now suggested that Wer900 should start an arbcom case with me as a party.[116] Occam writes, " you and I both know that ArbCom (and more specifically AGK) has given you explicit permission to do that, and permission to do it on my behalf." Occam's going cranky in his old age. Mathsci (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Well, since you claim to know what everyone else is thinking, I'm not certain what you need the rest of us for. You seem happier having conversations with yourself anyway. Resolute 14:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose one, it's double jeopardy. Original motion likely opposed. 2, if he was in fact guilty, he should have had the original punishment. 3 If he's not guilty he's not guilty and there should be no reprimand. There were other people here that were attacking users battleground mentality allows us to pick favourites and eliminate editors we don't like. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Recommend mediation.Greengrounds (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Sadly, there is no "mediation" procedure. It's not "double jeopardy," it's an alternative proposal. Nobody questions that Wer has been over the line, the question is whether he will wake up and what should be done about it if he doesn't... Carrite (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose  TUXLIE  11:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Makes much more sense!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support As it will keep Wer editing constructively, while staying away from potentially volatile comments. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no valid basis for any restriction on Wer.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not the right remedy. Wer can bitch about admins as much as he/she likes, but needs to be more careful with veracity and vastly reduce the hyperbole. Criticising (and praising) admins is a good thing. Pinging someone you're talking about - especially if it's criticism - is polite; but if you'd rather Wer didn't ping you, tell him/her not to. What you can't do is stop him/her from criticising you. The way to do that is to be a decent person. If you are a decent person, and there is no substance to his accusations, open an RfC and prove it. All I see here is a few admins bitching about being criticised. Realise, though, that if you bring on an RfC based on "Wer keeps criticising me", your behaviour will be reviewed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion has been made, presumably Wer900 has seen it. If you think he hasn't, drop a note on his talk page. No need to discuss this. Hatting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ArbCom? Wer900 may have exaggerated things and may have made accusations against some editors that cannot be fully supported. But many of the points he has made do have merit, they do point to a serious problem. That's why I think Wer900 should start an ArbCom case. That would also force him to fully support every accusation he makes. I would suggest Wer900 to immediately start such an ArbCom case before some Admin imposes a block based on the above discussion, he'll then have immunity against blocking for the issues discussed here. Count Iblis (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC) A curious suggestion given Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Beeblebrox remains a redlink. Also one where the absolutely best case scenario for Wer900 would be a pyhhric victory given their own conduct would also be evaluated. Resolute 19:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Could somebody please hat this sub-thread? Mathsci (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC) It's up to Wer to decide what to do next, I think it's better to start an ArbCom case than to start a RFC/U because part of the community is already complaining about Wer's complaints. So, it seems to me that if Wer wishes to continue with his arguments against Beeblebrox and some other Admins, he should do so in an ArbCom case. Count Iblis (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Could somebody please hat this sub-thread? Mathsci (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC) It's better to wait with that until Wer starts an ArbCom case. Count Iblis (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: Restriction on venues for complaints

User:Wer900 is formally warned to "comment on content, not on the contributor". Any complaints or negative remarks aimed at another editor's motives, qualities, or behavior are to be limited to the following two types of venue: formal Wikipedia dispute resolution venues (but only when that editor is the subject of discussion); and/or direct dialogue with the other editor initiated at that editor's talk page (but only so long as that editor is willing to continue dialogue). Wer900 is also prohibited from casting aspersions on any group of Wikipedia editors, whether or not any individual editors are identifiable members of the group. An uninvolved administrator may block Wer900 without further warning for violations of this restriction.

• Support as proposer. Allows Wer900 to continue constructive editing and to seek actual resolution of concerns with other editors' behavior; but addresses the concerns expressed above by other editors, and has broader effect than interaction bans with individual editors might. Note: "may" in last sentence of proposal is deliberate; borderline remarks might merit a warning/clarification by an admin rather than a block, so I wanted to leave room for discretion. alanyst 16:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support That's actually quite a smart proposal which effectively deals with the issue and does not prevent Wer900 from editing, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This looks far too much like a unilateral gag order for my taste. I'm especially concerned by the "any group of Wikipedia editors," which could be "broadly construed" by someone looking to block the editor in question. It also presumes that Wer900 is the only editor with issues in the above discussion. I'm not sure that this has been determined yet. This comment is motivated by the repeated re-opening of the above complaint by individuals who could be seen as involved. Intothatdarkness 19:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I acknowledge having seen this. I prefer my language; this is a mousetrap with what seems to me overbroad parameters — "casting aspersions" — which will almost definitely result in a block. Carrite (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - My comment above was an edit conflict with Intothatdarkness, who correctly points out that this proposal would effectively silence a consistent critic of WP structures instead of limiting the blockable offense to further attacks on "another editor's motives, qualities, or behavior," which is the actual problem. Carrite (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I am sympathetic to this concern. My intention with the wording about casting aspersions on groups was to avoid a loophole whereby Wer900 could continue the disruptive grousing but avoid sanctions by simply not naming names. If that restriction goes too far the other way, I am open to omitting it or weakening it somehow. alanyst 19:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose No restrictions on Wer are necessary, certainly not anything so mealy-mouthed. Get over it people. Move on.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The accusations against Wer900 boil down to complaining about Beeblebrox, a lot. This is not hugely disruptive, but it's annoying. Wer900 should put a sock in it. If you sanction or warn for this, you should turn right around and do the same to any other editor who exhibits the same behavior—a good example would be Mathsci who constantly complains about banned user Occam. For the record, I oppose any sanction against either editor. It's just whining. →StaniStani  19:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment All the oppose votes so far appear to be by regular contributors to wikipediocracy. That includes Stanistani. Wer900 is the latest editor in a series associated with Captain Occam that has included Ferahgo the Assassin, SightWatcher, Woodsrock, TrevelyanL85A2, Boothello, Zeromus1, The Devil's Advocate, Cla68, Akuri, and Mors Martell. In May 2013 he agreed to start an arbcom case on behalf of Occam.[117][118][119] Stanistani, who perhaps has his own agenda, has rejected those diffs as "fake". Even now Captain Occam is agitating off-wiki for the same thing. As a wikipediocracy admin, Stanistani could easily stop that if he wanted to. This mess started over there. Mathsci (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Musing "... of all tools used in the shadow of the moon, men are most apt to get out of order." →StaniStani  05:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There is no correspondence between Beeblebrox-Wer900 and Captain Occam-me. Occam is a highly disruptive arbcom banned user who, with Stanistani's acquiesence, has continued his disruption on wikipediocracy, including outing. Why compare him with Beeblebrox? After being recruited to proxy-edit for Occam, Wer900 made a number of grotesque and unprovoked statements about others. Why compare him with me? If Stanistani wants to make this kind of false comparison, please could he do so back in the Kingdom of the Trolls. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I stated in the AN/I that I would not start a case against you on behalf of Captain Occam, and I am a man of my word; I will not start any case on the topic against you. If and only if this goes to ArbCom (a process best avoided, so please don't reopen the "ArbCom?" section), though, you will be named as a party given that you have been the largest purveyor of insinuations and half-truths over here. Regarding the Occam affair, never forget that the edits I made about the case were to the talk page of Viriditas (talk · contribs), a now-blocked user whom I respect, in order to request his taking the case.[120] Notice, in the cited diff, that I never stated that I would take the case outright, asking for another user to ask as a safety valve for any imprudence of mine. (Don't go after Viriditas; he declined to take the case, in no uncertain terms.) I never intended to take the case on my own. What you reported me for, Mathsci, was the mere specter, the mere shadow, of a case that never materialized. Stop harping about the case and my "seekrit" connections with Occam and AGK; my inaction on AGK's email has rendered it moot. Wer900 • talk 22:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The only suitable reply here would probably be in WP:Bradspeak.[121] Mathsci (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have never contributed to the site in question, so trying to tar every oppose as "they're members of that bad place" simply won't work. What I do oppose are loosely-worded proposals that allow for the easy formation of lynch mobs. Intothatdarkness 13:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I must have confused you with another user with a similar name. Mathsci (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Why are you bringing me up again? I've avoided you since the beginning of this year, but you're still talking about me. I do not like my name being brought up in discussions that no longer concern me. I think everyone else is tired of hearing your theories about this, and they don't seem to be getting any traction with arbitrators anymore. For example I see that when you tagged Mors Martell as a sock puppet, [122] an arbitrator removed the tag. [123] -SightWatcher (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - The thing that Wer needs to stop is "battleground behavior involving attacks upon any other editor's motives or qualities." I don't personally think this even needs to be spelled out (I just strongly hint at this in my language) — but if one were trying to spell it out in no uncertain terms, that's how I would spell it out. I also think that a formal one-way interaction ban between Wer and Beeblebrox is called for, seeing that he is the complainant. Carrite (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is unnecessary. The thread was already closed as 'no consensus' by an uninvolved admin, and I'm sure Wer is well aware that their future comments will be subject to close scrutiny from others. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• support: hopefully, it will get Wer to stop and consider his actions and comments. this does not prohibit him from commenting on RFC/U's or any of the notice boards ( and if it does, it need to be rephrased). also does not prohibit content discussion on talk pages. it only prohibits him from making comments that could reasonable be interpreted as personal attacks or harassment. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, especially since it is not just a question of what Wer has said about Beebelbrox, but part of a larger pattern of behavior. The admonition to limit complaints about other editors to only the proper venues is a very good one for anybody, not just Wer. However, that said, it's painfully obvious to me that ANI is incapable of effecting these kinds of proposals, and that the broader issue of aspersion-casting is going to wind up at ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per IRWolfie- and Tryptofish. Wer900 needs to get back to content editing and stop making the problematic comments that led to this report. Mathsci (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support An effective, sensible, and pretty watered down compromise. I'm amazed that anyone is still against this. This sort of nonsense is why our one of our core policies has turned into an unenforceable empty promise. Gamaliel (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. We should all stick to this, it's just that we usually don't enforce violations of this, because it's not always clear what is a violation and what not. So, I would be in favor of first asking Wer900 if he is willing to voluntarily stick to this, which in practice means that he will not persue his arguments against Beeblebrox in the way he has been doing. The problem with imposing this restriction on him is that it could be used, say 4 years from now in some completely unrelated issue where he would legitimately raise a problem on e.g. Jimbo's page. Take e.g. Sceptre's recent blocks for posting on Jimbo's page even when Jimbo said that she should not have been blocked for bringing a problem to his attention. Count Iblis (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comment above. Wer may criticise or praise admins. What Wer must do is get better at it. Wer, you must slow down and be much more careful with your claims, and more discriminating about where you make them. If you don't improve in those regards, I'll support some kind of constraint next time this comes up.

I see you're being urged to request arbitration. That would be a mistake. If you think Beeblebrox (whom I don't know from Adam) is a problem to the project, then the best thing you could do would be to build a clear, concise but comprehensive case and open an RfC to see what the editor community thinks. If your case is convincing, the community can handle the problem with some carefully targeted restrictions addressing Beeblebrox's specific areas of concern. If that is unsuccessful, and you still think some kind of restrictions would be appropriate, then is the time to request arbitration. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Beeblebrox has made this comment on his userpage when he was notified about this proposal by alanyst. Needless to say, there is no ArbCom case being "concocted" by Wer and me, I do agree with what Anthonyhcole says above about going to ArbCom. I did make the suggestion that Wer could consider going to ArbCom right away, but that was assuming that he wants to persue an issue that the community has little patience for (you then do have to consider why ArbCom would want to hear the case, of course). Count Iblis (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Too much, too broad. Wer does need to stop gratuously invoking and linking Beeblebrox's name as some sort of example of all that is wrong with Wikipedia. NE Ent 01:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• How, exactly, do you plan on stopping him from doing that without some sort of sanction? Do you think making your disagreement with his actions known is sufficient to do that? Perhaps a very stern warning will do the trick? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• He has already agreed to stop, and just look at his reply to Beeblebrox's comment on Wer's talk page. Just consider some editor using similar words as Beeblebrox posting on someone else's talk page with a request like that. How does Wer's response compare with what you would typically expect in such a case? So, if pooring gasoline on an object isn't leading to a big fire, it's a safe bet that there is no fire there, therefore no need to call in the fire fighters, at most you could think of talking to the person who has been accidentally spilling gasoline but only at the right venue , of course :) . Count Iblis (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone could propose a more narrow sanction, line up the votes etc. etc. It's been my observation that, after an editors actions have been discussed to this extent in an ANI thread, a recurrence will be dealt with fairly quickly. As this path requires far less work for everyone or at least me, it works for me. NE Ent 02:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as with any measure designed to prevent "us plebs", to borrow Eric's perfect phrase, from pointing out admin-abuse. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Kahastok is disrupting a GA attempt

The issue of which units of measure to use in the article Falkland Islands has been simmering for some years with User:Kahastok and User:Wee Curry Monster arguing for imperial units and User:Michael Glass and myself arguing for metric units. In an act of blatant Wikipedia:WikiBullying, User:Kahastok created the page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS giving his reason as The major reason for having clear and unambiguous rules for units on Falklands articles - as supplied by FALKLANDSUNITS - is that they are difficult to game in ways such as these. Such tactics have been a continual feature of Michael and Martin's four-year campaign to force metrication on Falklands articles. A similar sentiment was expressed here by Wee Curry Monster. I have tried, so far in vain, to have this page neutralised but eventually both Michael and I took less and less interest in the Falkland Islands article while Wee Curry Monster has retired from Wikipedia after receiving an indefinite topic ban for disruption relating to the Falkland Islands.

Recently there was a move to get the Falkland Islands article up to WP:GA status. During the course of events, the question of units of measure came up. In the resulting discussion, the consensus was that metric units should be used, but Kahastok behaved in such a disgraceful way that in the course of one evening he succeeded in driving OrangeJacketGuy (here) and Travellers & Tinkers (here) away from the article, he had MilborneOne (here) asking why he bothered to help and he totally misrepresented me here when he wrote "He would also say that the UK is also metric-only" (BTW, I as the principal editor of this assessment of metrication in the UK and Metrication in the United Kingdom# Current usage. The full discussion can be seen at Talk:Falkland Islands# Metric v. Imperial

I request that appropriate action be taken against User:kahastok for his gross incivility earlier on this evening. Martinvl (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2013‎ (UTC)

Since posting this complaint, User:Mtpaley has also indicated that unless a solution can be found, he too will be moving on from the project. Martinvl (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely true. I am just trying to finialise the Falkland unit wars and I have deliberately not expressed any opinions about the editors or the subject. I think the entire debate has got totally out of control and it needs some definitive external input to resolve it and give the definitive answer. I recently posted a comment on the talk page saying that in 24 hours I will escalate this and try and finalise it. Mtpaley (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this issue has got personal and it needs a independent and binding decision to resolve it - see my recent Talk entries on the page. Mtpaley (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It may or may not be worth noting that after I had clearly disembarked from the whole mess on the talk page, that user continued to post in my talk page, clearly after anything constructive could have been said. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't participated in this specific discussion on units or ever interacted with User:Martinvl or User:Michael Glass as far as I remember, but my experience with User:Kahastok on related subjects concurs with Martin's observations on his behaviour. When changes to Kahastok's preferred text were proposed on talk pages, he frequently obfuscated the discussion with distortions and unfounded harsh criticism, aided by a systemic bias that exists on those topics due to language, and leading to an inevitable lack of consensus. As a result, even though I brought lots of arguments and sources, I could hardly ever affect any sentence of the articles.

As an example, Kahastok's latest feat involving my work has been directed at a review that I've been writing [124]. Firstly, he attacked it [125] with distortions like the invention of a clause in a treaty [126]. I cannot prove in one sentence that his accusation was worthless, but it may be evaluated by reading the review and checking, e.g., the authority of the sources (I beg you do that before buying his claims). After he failed to convince User:MarshalN20 from neglecting the review, he joined [127] an attack [128] by User:Wee Curry Monster, like in the old days before WCM was banned from this subject, in an attempt that ultimately succeeded in persuading MarshalN20 to stop requesting sources and clarifications on the review's talk page [129], leaving everyone more exposed to the customary obfuscation . As I see it, MarshalN20 did it for reasons unrelated to contribution potential or WP policy, but rather akin to bullying intimidation [130].

After months of interactions with Kahastok, I've experienced little more from him than this confrontational style filled with distortions, dubious competence and attempts to preserve a status quo that he likes. One that is far from a NPOV, as I demonstrate in the review (which simply scratches the surface). -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I have done little editing of Falkland Islands articles for years. Despite this, Kahastok keeps on dragging my name into the discussion. The way that Kahastok behaves towards those he disagrees with can be seen from [131]. I have made an effort to be polite to Kahastok [132] but all has been in vain. I can see from the discussion here that I am not the only editor to have this trouble with Kahastok. Michael Glass (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

(Pfainuk and Justin in Michael's link are Kahastok and WCM's previous nicks). -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Andres kindly notified me about this matter and also mentions me here. I would like to start by stating that User:Basalisk has in no form or way ever bullied me (bullying defined as a behavioral pattern). Not to patronize Andres, but perhaps he meant to state that Basalisk's statement could be taken as a kind of intimidation. Regardless, the possible problem of intimidation has nothing to do with Basalisk, as the "hold" on my account is monitored by the Arbitration Committee. In fact, Basalisk is doing the opposite, essentially protecting my "liberty" to edit WP. But this is another matter.
With regards to the "Falklands Measurement System Dispute", all I recommend is that the matter be directly taken to the Arbitration Committee. This is a long-winded conflict with too many involved users & muddled positions. Using other dispute resolution venues will not solve the problem. Moreover, this "measurements disagreement" is not a content dispute, but rather a mixture between policy & conduct, so ArbComm is perfectly capable of dealing with it.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what I meant, thanks MarshalN20. I used the wrong word, sorry. And I didn't mean to accuse User:Basalisk, though I wish she/he would have reacted otherwise. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Can the originator of this report please clarify exactly what is being reported:

• The heading suggests disruption of a GA attempt, yet there is no diff or link given to show that a GA attempt is taking place or of evidence of disruption to it.
• Bully is mentioned in the report with no link or diff showing bullying.
• There are suggestions of disgtraceful behaviour driving editors away, with no links of diffs demonstrating disgraceful behaviour.
• The final sentence suggests there was incivility, again with no links or diffs showing any evidence.
• Notification of this report to those involved have different headings - some call it disruption, some incivility.

I suggest that the reporter clarifies the reason and produces appropriate evidence, or withdraws the report. Credibility gap (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• My present role in this is that I am supervising MarshalN20's edit in this area, per an ArbCom amendment. My view is that this report is mainly hot air. Kahastok's actions are not disruptive, and regardless what Martinvl thinks, Kahastok is entitled to an opinion and to argue in aid of it. My opinion is that this is a content dispute and when Martinvl says "disrupting GA drive" what he actually means is "disagreeing with my point of view". I have to say I think the suggestion that this go to ArbCom is misguided in the extreme as this a) isn't a user conduct issue and b) not all avenues of dispute resolution have been pursued. I do not even think this is appropriate for ANI and this should probably be withdrawn. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• If Basalisk looks at the thread carefully, he will see that a lot of the contention centres around the page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS - a page which Kahastok asserts is consensus and a page that I asset is an attempt at WP:BULLYING. What is this page anyway? Is it policy? Is it a Guideline? Is it an essay? The page does not say. Last night I attempted to get clarification on the issue last night by proposing the page as a "Draft Wikipedia Policy". Kahastok reverted my actions.

May I respectfully request that Basalisk (or any other administrator) assist in clarifying what this page actually is. If it is a bully-stick, then, as per WP:CIVILITY it has no place in Wikipedia. If it is a Wikipedia policy, guideline or essay, it should be properly marked as such and made visible to all Wikipedia editors, not stuck away in a workgroup subfolder. Martinvl (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Given the above, editors will be astonished to learn that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was in fact endorsed WP:FALKLANDSUNITS at the time. He said that editors should follow it to the letter, lest a "civil war" break out. That "civil war" is what he has since trying to spark, by bringing this up every few months ever since.

All in all, this POV push has been going on for four and a half years, causing massive disruption to the topic - in fact, until the recent unpleasantness with Gaba I would have said (and did in fact say) that it was worse than everything the page has suffered in terms of Anglo-Argentine disputes put together. The only respite was the period immediately after the consensus for WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was reached. That is, until Martin decided to renege on the deal, pretending that he had never endorsed it.

We need this POV push to finish, but that cannot be by sacrificing basic Wikipedia values - by allowing Martin to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool for the completion of metrication in the United Kingdom. And it needs to finish in the long term. There is no point in reaching a deal, only for Martin to renege on it again, in the hopes of forcing the deal to be steadily more metric. Given how many times he has tried to fool or trick me and others, and given how many times he has tried to game the system, my ability to assume his good faith has long since evaporated.

Martin the only one who wants this to continue. We should be in the business of stopping him for the good of the topic. I believe that a topic ban for Martinvl is the only way of protecting Wikipedia from this POV push in the long term.

I reverted his "Draft Wikipedia Policy" banner because it claimed that the page was a draft and did not represent a consensus. This is false, and he knows it. I believe that was the only reason it was tagged.

I don't have much time to write much more than that, but if people want more detail or diffs, I may be back later or tomorrow. Kahastok talk 17:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok’s statement is full of half-truths, misrepresentations and personal attacks.

• An "uneasy truce" (my wording here does not equal "consensus" and much less "endorsement". I stepped back from pressing for common sense in respect of units of measure because at the time Wee Curry Monster was trying to steer the article to being a WP:GA. I knew that the article might well fail due to shortcomings in the area the units of measure, so I was letting the GA reviewer do the work. To use a chess analogy, this was a Poisoned Pawn Variation. Since IU have never endorsed the page, Kahastok's use of the word " renege" is totally uncivil.
• My ability to assume good faith in him disappeared when he tried to sabotage the writing of Metrication of British Transport - the only support that he had was from two sockpuppets of user:DeFacto - the same sockmaster who controlled User:Ex-Stanley, a vocal supported of Kahastok in the earlier parts of the discussion from which this WP:ANI request sprung. After Ex-Stanley was exposed, I tried to strike his comments out, but Kahastok reinstated the comments. If Kahastok's arguments are sound, why does he have to rely on a sockpuppert for support?
• I think that the real reason that Kahastok reverted by "Draft Policy Banner" on WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was because he knows that the page will not stand up to any proper scrutiny – after all, is that page a policy document, a guideline, an essay or some unspecified rubbish? Unless it is properly scrutinised by the community at large it counts for nothing!
• I will not answer his personal attack of POV pushing - I would like to Wikipedia community at large to do that; in the first instance they should establish a baseline from which to work by passing a verdict on WP:FALKLANDSUNITS.

I repeat my invitation to User:Basalisk (or any other administrator) to require that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS be classified as a policy and that it be scrutinised by the Wikipedia community at large. This can be done by reinstating the {{Draft proposal}} template at the top of its page. (Its prescriptive language is the sort of language that one would find in a policy document rather than in a guideline or an essay).

Martinvl (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems odd that Martin feels that an MOS-compliant article will not pass the GA criteria, but an article that for no apparent reason falls short of the MOS - as he demands - will pass. This does not make sense, and any vaguely sane criteria would say the opposite. If the GA criteria say that we are actually not allowed to follow our own Manual of Style, then there's something wrong with them that needs to be fixed. The point here is Martin trying to push his own POV on to UK-related articles: Martin trying to campaign for metrication in the UK by means of Wikipedia.

Whether Martin likes it or not, the MOS calls for imperial units in some contexts for UK-related articles such as this one. We're not talking about every context. Most are metric-first. But Martin's argument effectively boils down to either arguing that the UK should be the only country in the world not allowed to use the units in use locally, or that all British people use kilometres really and just put miles on all the road signs to confuse foreigners. The same applies to the Falklands - currently governed (legitimately or not) as a British Overseas Territory that we have no reason to suppose is any different. There is absolutely no reason why we should not follow the MOS.

I see he's still trying to argue that there's a difference between accepting the consensus and accepting the consensus. Fact is, Martin acted for all the world as though he accepted the consensus for months on end, advising editors to stick to it "to the letter". He apparently later decided that he wanted the "civil war" after all, and has been going about trying to set it off ever since.

I did object to Metrication of British Transport. I haven't looked at it in a long time, but at the time it relied pretty much exclusively on a form of OR that I have seen Martin use frequently: if he can find a single document that only uses one system of measurement - even if it doesn't actually mention systems of measurement at all - he will write the article to say that the organisation that wrote it uses that system of measurement exclusively. If you accept that there is even a possible good faith belief that such practice is OR, you should reject Martin's claim that my conduct can only have been in bad faith, because that was my objection. Excluding all the OR, the topic appeared to me to fail WP:GNG, and thus I nominated it for deletion accordingly. I also tried to remove some of the OR, but met with stiff resistance - including from Martin, who insisted among other things that the burden of consensus is reversed for large-scale changes.

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is a Wikiproject guideline, just like many others across Wikipedia. It represents the current state of WikiProject consensus. Tagging it as something that is "definitely still in development and under discussion, and has not yet reached the process of gathering consensus for adoption" is highly misleading. Martin knows that. I know that. I contend that his tagging it as not consensus when he knows full well that it is consensus is disruptive. Kahastok talk 22:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Should this be made a sub-thread of the "Reinstatement of sockpuppet's work - 0RR request" ANI thread that is currently opened? Since it involves the same parties. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen. Anyone who knows anything about the Falkland Islands would agree that they an inherently controversial topic. However, most would have expected this would have been due to their status as disputed between the UK and Argentina, their naming as Falkland or Malvinas, coastal, fishing, and mineral rights, a reasonably recent war, and similar related matters. Who would have guessed that the most controversial issue would be whether to list distances with miles first and km second or vice versa? For the love of Mike (or Miguel), is this really the most important thing to argue over? Pick an intelligent but otherwise uninvolved moderator (honestly, 99.9% of editors will not be biased in any direction on this), or hold an RFC that an admin will close, and settle it. Compared to the far more controversial things about the Islands, readers of the article will really not care very much which unit of measurement is listed first. This argument is a strong candidate for WP:LAME. --GRuban (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, & have acted appropriately. -- llywrch (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

How many RFCs do we have to have? We've had plenty of them before. This has been going on for four and a half years, you don't think we've tried RFCs?

I don't want to continually discuss this any more than anyone else does. I would be very happy if nobody ever brought it up again. The only person who insists on bringing this up over and over and over is Martin. That's why I want him stopped. So that the rest of us can move on.

RFC should not be an iterative process. It is not reasonable to hold RFC after RFC after RFC until one of the RFCs finally accepts the POV push, any more than you hold election after election after election until the public finally elects the candidate the government wants. Kahastok talk 22:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Link to one, probably the last one - how was it closed? Were they really all "no consensus"? Have you considered just letting the other side win? Is it really that bad whether miles are listed second - or first? --GRuban (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What if he were insisting it be written in US English in violation of WP:ENGVAR - is that "really that bad"? What if he were insisting it be written using "Malvinas", instead of "Falkland" at every instance of the word - is that "really that bad"? What if he were insisting that instead of basing our history on a balance of reliable sources, we instead concentrated on pro-British or pro-Argentine sources - is that "really that bad"? We should be against POV pushing at every turn, in favour of neutrality and the rules we use to enforce them. Nobody has given a single good reason on talk not to follow the MOS, which calls for a mixed system. Kahastok talk 06:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Contributors to the debate to date are:

• Pro-metric: User:Jonathunder, User:Martinvl, User:Michael Glass, User:MilborneOne, User:Travellers & Tinkers, User:OrangeJacketGuy, User:Eric
• Pro-imperial or Pro-statusquo: User:Kahastok, User:Ex-Stanley (a sockpuppet). In addition User:Apcbg and User:KeithD reinstated imperial–first on the article.

By my counting, this give 7 editors favouring metric-first and 4 favouring imperial first (one of whom is a sockpuppet and should not count). This is hardly consensus in favour of imperial units. Therefore, in spite of what Kahastok might say, WP:FALKLANDSUNITS does not reflect consensus. As Margaret Thatcher once said "Put up or shut up" - in this case let the Wikipedia community at large judge the worthiness of the page.

Martinvl (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So now you're trying to claim that the standard burden of consensus, that a consensus remains unless it is overturned, no longer exists when you don't like it? More WP:GAMEs methinks. Kahastok talk 06:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No I am not. What I have noticed is that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is not catalogued as a formal guideline, it is not part of the MOS tree structure and it is not mentioned in MOS. The previous comments show that the claim the page reflect consensus is dubious. These two points make the page worthless. I am trying to regularise the situation by bringing it out into the open, what are you trying to hide? Martinvl (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that there is no need for WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. WP:MOSNUM should apply. Michael Glass (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be great if we could trust editors to apply WP:MOSNUM in the spirit that was intended. Unfortunately, several years of experience would seem to demonstrate that we cannot. I would be happy to have a version of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS that does nothing but prescribe the recommendations for UK-related articles at WP:UNITS, though I note that that is the intention of the existing version. Prescription is good because it gives no room for doubt or misinterpretation and as little room as possible for WP:GAMEs.

I do nonetheless see no point at all in resolving this dispute only for Martin to open it again in three or six months time. As he has been doing every few months for years now. We need some guarantee that this is not coming back. And my major concern is that if we resolve anything here to mutual satisfaction, it will only give us a ceasefire in Martin's "civil war", before he reneges on the deal again and comes back with all guns blazing. Thus, I will not support or accept any change without a guarantee, enforceable by block, that this is the end of the matter - at least so far as Martin is concerned.

Martin asks what I have to hide. My answer is, Martin, when did you stop beating your wife? I've given my objection to your tagging the page as not having reached consensus - when we all know very well that it has reached consensus - several times. It is not as though there aren't WikiProject consensuses on style documented at similar pages all over Wikipedia. Here's one. Here's another. WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is hardly unusual. Kahastok talk 17:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, you're arguing over whether to put imperial or metric measurements first? I don't know if you all realise how ridiculous this argument is and how ridiculous it is making all the involved parties look. Just put it in alphabetical order, honestly. It is unbelievable that there was an RFC to discuss it let alone several. Blackmane (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS has not yet been formally adopted as an offical guideline. I have created a proposal to regularise the position. Please feel free to comment Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units#Proposal for acceptance as a formal guideline. If the proposal is accepted, then the page will indeed be part of Wikipedia policy, otherwise it will be tagged a "failed proposal". Either way the uncertainty that has dogged this page for the last three years will be resolved. This message is being sent to every editor of good standing who has contributed here or here. Martinvl (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

He fails to get consensus on talk and he goes to ANI. He fails to get what he wants through ANI so he goes to RFC on the talk page for WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. This is pure WP:FORUMSHOPPING. And he will continue this in place after place. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? His continual insistence on our having this discussion over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over had become disruptive in about 2009 or 2010. He doesn't stop. You, admins, need to stop him.

I note he's also now trying to push a banner at the top of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS claiming that it hasn't reached consensus, when it has. He knows that the contents of the banner is false. He knows that full well. He is trying to use the tag to change history and to mislead other editors.

Please topic ban Martin from units of measure in Falklands context, including the rules that govern them. Nobody else starts this discussion in the way he does. Nobody else tries to prolong this discussion like this. A topic ban is the only way to make him stop banging on about it. Kahastok talk 07:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I must say I sympathise with [User:Blackmane|Blackmane's]] points above. However, the foolishness does not even stop there. WP:FALKLANDSUNITS seems to be mostly ignored. At a quick glance, Falkland Islands appears to be largely metric first while East Falkland, West Falkland Speedwell Island and Weddell Island appear to be metric first. Jason Islands follows the rules into a thicket of inconsistency. As WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is either ignored, or followed slavishly into confusion, it serves no good purpose. Michael Glass (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

In the case of the Jason Islands, it's actually a case of too many measurements full stop. All those measurements were put in before WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was adopted, when a particular editor was in the habit of putting as many metric measurements as you could find in as many articles as you could find, in clear defiance of the the-consensus for imperial-first only. Sometimes he didn't even bother to use full sentences and there needed to be a fair bit of clean-up afterward. Who was that editor? You.

(Oh, and by the way, WP:FALKLANDSUNITS does allow for exceptions to the rule in the case of significant inconsistency.)

All the rest of it tells you is that Martin routinely makes controversial edits in this area under innocuous-looking edit summaries. He's trying to hide. There is no point in pretending that Martin does not know that this is controversial, nor that he does not know that he is going against both WikiProject and Wikipedia consensus. Otherwise he wouldn't hide them.

This is yet another example of Martin deliberately trying to subvert the consensus process. It's just another demonstration of Martin's untrustworthiness. And it's just another reason why he needs to be topic banned as soon as possible. Kahastok talk 23:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a link to that edit. Yes, I put in the conversions to Imperial measures when others objected to their absence. Then I was blamed for putting in too many measurements! I think the problem may have been better dealt with by providing the information in tabular form, but it's not worth trying in such a poisonous atmosphere. My own feeling about WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is that it should be scrapped. Michael Glass (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I did actually remove a large number of these already, and put many of the rest into a table [133]. And IIRC you cried blue murder at the time about removing information. On that particular article, 90% of the geography section could be replaced with a map and the article would only become more informative. Kahastok talk 09:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I have requested such a map at the graphics lab. Kahastok talk 10:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Or you could all just follow WP:MOSCONVERSIONS. Creating a separate style guideline for a subset of articles is absurd, particularly when the point that is being argued is already covered in the MOS. Blackmane (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Put me in the list of editors who consider it more appropriate to have metric units listed first. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Subject of article requesting article be deleted

The article in question is Theresa Obermeyer, and Ms. Obermayer (or someone claiming to be her, I obviously have no ability to verify) would like it either deleted or rewritten to her specifications.

New user Tobermeyer6 initially posted a request in an unrelated article,[134] and when I deleted it, she posted the request on my talk page.

I'm not an admin, so I'm bringing the issue here on her behalf. For now I have no opinion of what should be done with the article. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Re I'm not an admin... -- could you get that fixed please? Thanks. Zad68 20:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't be deleting anyting just based on the comment of someone whom may or may not be the one in question. They need to submit an official request through WP:OTRS. Kumioko (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • (Off-topic) Zad, are you saying I should fix the fact that I'm not an admin? Or am I completely misreading you here? Just curious. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
    • You understood correctly! Zad68 20:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) The proposed content is not really usable, both because it appears elsewhere (the subject's facebook?), and because it's not based on any reliable sources. But on the other hand, the only reference in the article is about the subject's husband. I think this could easily be deleted on notability grounds. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, someone should probably oversight that personal information from Dawn Bard's talk page. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Probably not a bad idea - if oversight is deemed appropriate here, make sure to get the edit to Ideal speech situation that she made earlier - it contains all of the same info. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• I've stubified the article per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Even if she is a public figure WP:PUBLICFIGURE suggests the article should have been better sourced for the information unrelated to why she is a public figure, namely her run for US Senate. It may be possible to better source some of what I removed, and if they are they may be restored, but speaking with my admin hat totally removed, out of respect for human dignity, I'd prefer they be left out. Monty₈₄₅ 20:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, policy, per deletion policy and BLP, says that we don't have to completely disregard people's wishes with respect to deletion of their articles. I might take a stronger view of this than is strictly supported in policy, but I don't see any reason why we shouldn't honor a person of marginal notability's request to delete their article (and to be fair, based on a very quick glance, I'm not sure that the article fairly represented her anyway.) I'll be creating the AfD directly, if someone hasn't beaten me to the punch. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That was actually my first thought. And was getting ready to do that until I got the the last sentence of the article. Being a major party candidate for US Senate is a pretty big deal. Monty₈₄₅ 20:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That's fair; I'm sure people will disagree with me, and I'm not at all sure the AfD will succeed, but it's certainly worth the discussion. Side note: I've revdeled the two edits pending true oversight. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

(ecx4)No complaint here, I don't have the delete button but personally (and meaning no disrespect to the individual in question) I don't see anything in the article that would indicate inherent notibility anyway. I guess if the situation escalates we can always undelete it. Kumioko (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Generally Wikipedia articles are not deleted or rewritten simply because the subject if the article is unhappy with what is written about them. In this case however, this article seems to fail Wikipedias general notability guidelines. An unsuccessful run for a senate seat is hardly lasting notability. JOJ ^Hutton 20:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Per WP:POLITICIAN just being an unsuccessful candidate doesn't get you over that specialized notability guideline, it defaults back to WP:GNG, and from my searches so far it might or might not meet that. This could be a case where we apply the principle that self-requests to delete when the notability is marginal should be honored. Zad68 20:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, Zad, you are correct on policy, but a major party candidate for US Senate is inevitably going to receive multiple profiles in the newspapers and so pass GNG.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what I'd expect too, but I was surprised to find Google News give zero hits and Google Scholar (searching on "Theresa Obermeyer" in quotes) produce only two relevant-looking hits and I can't really tell if they'd be useful for a bio. A straight-up Web search does give some more things--juneauempire.com seems to have the most stories--but I haven't yet run across the nice independently-written candidate profile we're looking for. We'll see what gets brought to any AFD... Zad68 20:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Her run was years ago, so you want to use Search Tools : Archives. Pages and pages of hits. --GRuban (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

GRuban so when I tell Google News search that I want my search results from "Any time", that doesn't actually mean "Any time"? Wow... I'm embarrassed to say I didn't know about that before, and thanks for explaining it. (And who says that nothing good ever comes out of an ANI thread?) And absolutely, when you search the archives you get quite a bit. Meanwhile the AFD is rolling forward with delete at full speed... Zad68 02:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that the Google archives are becoming less and less useful, as Google have stopped adding new articles to them. My impression is that something that was in the news 6 months or two years ago is now essentially unfindable in Google News. (See Template_talk:Find_sources#Google_News_search_is_completely_useless Andreas JN466 16:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There are only 100 U.S. Senate seats, and 2 major American political parties, so being the candidate of a major party in an election for a U.S. Senate seat would seem to handily fulfill notability requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest an early close on the deletion discussion per WP:BLP, WP:SNOW, etc. It's a very clear delete. Could an admin close it, please? StAnselm (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It's long been practice that a BLP of a marginally notable person with no or skimpy sources be deleted, particularly when everything unsourced is removed (and that's something that definitely should be done in cases of the subject asking for the removal of the article) - David Gerard (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Manning

 – NE Ent 23:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:L'Origine du monde

User:L'Origine du monde, fresh off a block, is now trying to blackmail Reaper Eternal, EdJohnston, and JamesBWatson by ordering them to "apologise sincerely for all [their] mistakes" or L'Origine du monde will "pursue further complaints". Obvious blackmail there and obviously not a good idea.

Since the user was unblocked under two hours ago, I am requesting that User:L'Origine du monde be reblocked and indefinitely (as they previously were), as they are obviously not here to edit constructively. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I have notified the user in question, as well as the unblocking admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I was wrongly blocked for evading a block that did not apply to me. Blackmail is not involved. Serious mistakes were made by three administrators, including one check user, and it is important this does not happen again. BEFORE using this board, it is normal to initiate discussions on the talk pages of the editor involved.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 03:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If you were, in fact, wrongly blocked, there would already be an active discussion here on ANI or over on AN, there isn't. But saying you won't do A if someone does B is blackmail. You saying you won't "pursue further complaints" if the admins don't "apologise sincerely for all [their] mistakes" is the definition of blackmail. Attempting to blackmail an admin goes straight to ANI and bypasses the user talk pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You are opinionated. I suggest you read my talk page. I am afraid I thought that the procedure was first to discuss problems with the relevant editors on their talk pages, and only to raise the issue here should that fail to give satisfaction.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 03:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you object to this edit too - [[135]] ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'Origine du monde (talk • contribs) 03:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm extremely "opinionated", but not in this. Let's wait for the admins as any back-and-forth between us will do no good.

As for the image request, yes, I do object. It could be seen as you only wanting it taken off the blacklist so you can put it back on your userpage. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

L'Origine du monde, if you continue to be so abrasive towards everyone else involved in this incident, no one is going to give you the benefit of the doubt. To be honest, after reading your recent comments, I have absolutely no interest in helping you because your comments are so off-putting. I strongly suggest that you take a deep breath and try to calm your tone. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You are not supposed to add images to that list for that purpose, but for widespread vandalistic use. It took the painting away from a number of other pages without discussion. I see no reason why a consensus could not be reached that I am entitled to use that image. It has been used as a user page image for 4 years without any complaints.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 04:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The bad image list is meant for images that could be seen as inappropriate for use outside of very controlled environments. For example, many images of genitalia are on the list because those images should not be on pages that are not assumed to be about that subject. Think of if you clicked on World or Earth and saw a picture of a tangentially related genitalia. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 04:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly - read the guidelines for the list. I will now take a break. I did not ask for this discussion now. If you had been banned for evading a block on a completely unrelated user for 3 weeks by administrators who seem to have close to zero understanding of what an IP is, and how it relates to user accounts, but like to interrupt conversations with an editor who does, you would probably be a little angry yourself.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'Origine du monde (talk • contribs) 04:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the admin saw you were doing something that you weren't supposed to. Since your userpage was deleted, I can't tell for myself. Also, I highly doubt it was used as an image on your userpage since you have only been an editor here since August of 2013. Also, you might want to read WP:NPA, because your continuous snide remarks and personal attacks aren't going to get you anywhere. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ultimately, however, isn't the reason for the perceived bad block immaterial to this ANI? Is the purpose more to discuss L'origine's behavior post-block? --McDoobAU93 04:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The deleted userpage contained nothing but the image being discussed with regards to the bad image list. Monty₈₄₅ 04:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

L'Origine, in this edit are you stating that you do indeed have sockpuppets? Zad68 04:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If not the registered editor I conflated him with, he might be talking about this, this and this IP account that I was discussing with Elockid; those are accounts that L'Origine du monde‎ used. AndyTheGrump might have had more experience with L'Origine du monde‎ than any other editor while L'Origine du monde‎ was editing as IPs. L'Origine du monde‎ has not been editing Wikipedia only since August 2013. Flyer22 (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that any of the admins here misused any of their powers and were following policy. It's quite evident that the edits of the IP were L'Origine du monde's. Since none of the admins here had CheckUser uses at the time of the blocking evidence, it's very believable that the L'Origine du monde appeared to be a returning blocked/banned user. Furthermore, to complicate things, the person who was editing behind the IP can't be disclosed due to WMF's privacy policy. It would appear then that L'Origine du monde is socking. Honestly, if I didn't have CU access, I probably would have also thought that L'Origine du monde was a returning blocked/banned user. This was all just an honest mistake. I can understand L'Origine du monde's frustration. However, I don't believe that this is the right venue. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the talk page messages I don't think they are actionable. Asking for an apology, which would imply an admission of error, as way of resolving a dispute is reasonable, and mentioning that you will pursue it further if not resolved is not blackmail. The messages were worded strongly, and seem unlikely to have the desired effect, but they aren't blackmail. Monty₈₄₅ 04:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • If Elockid thinks this isn't the right venue and Monty845 thinks there isn't any blackmail (even though I disagree), I will accept their opinions and we can call this resolved, unless anyone else feels different. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Elockid thank you for your contribution. However I disagree about abuse of power. Reaper Eternal blocked me because I asked you a question on your talk page and he didn't like my choice of painting- but didn't want to discuss it. After you explained what I was asking about (for some reason he never asked you, and I didn't realise I could email you till two days ago), he wrote on his talk page

Elockid has clarified that the block on the IP was not targeted at him, but, rather, at another user who apparently was spoofing Ldm's IP. Since he's convinced I have a "conflict of interest" regarding his block (from what I don't know), I'm not going to take any action. And honestly, now that the issue of block evasion has been cleared up, I'm not going to complain if he creates another account with an acceptable username and userpage. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

He obviously still doesn't understand how IPs work (no spoofing was involved), refused to lift his block, and doesn't understand

"Conflicts of Interest Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. It is acceptable for an administrator to block someone who has been engaging in clear-cut vandalism in that administrator's userspace."

He also failed to explain what he was doing, or why. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 04:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Reaper blocked you for asking a question. As I stated previously, it would seem that you were evading your block and that was the main reason why Reaper blocked you. He wasn't a CU when he made the block so there wasn't any misuse of tools there. He probably was simply acting on WP:DUCK. Might not be the most practical way, but it's the best thing we have right now considering how Wikipedia works. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer. What I meant when saying not the best venue was that it probably would have been better to ask for an apology privately or at a more friendly tone. This way we can avoid all the drama and perhaps L'Origine du monde could have gotten what he asked for. I'll have to stop commenting here for now as it's getting late for me. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@Elockid: My mistake, I misunderstood. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If this discussion could focus on removing File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg from the Bad image list I would be happy. This file depicting the famous 1866 oil painting l'Origine du monde by the French artist Courbet, on public display in the Musee d'Orsay in Paris was added to the list by User:Reaper Eternal. This removed it from a number of pages in the userspace where it had happily been for many years with no complaints. He made this addition because he objected to me displaying the image on my user page, which he had previously deleted. Given that there had been no widespread problem with this image of an iconic painting, I think he was wrong to add it to the list without discussion. MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list#Remove_File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg_from_the_Bad_image_list ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 05:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently L'Origine is now trying to blackmail me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, dude/dudette, L'Origine, going around and demanding apologies is something that children and governments do. It's a waste of time, and never gets the desired result anyway, since you can never even be sure of the sincerity of the apology. Just go about your business, please. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. If people make mistakes with their administrative, or checkuser special powers, and don't understand why, wikipedia has a problem. Apologies are a simple part of civility, and the natural response to making mistakes, particularily when they have caused pain, as this 3 week ban has. Neutral homer started this discussion - and was offensive to me on a talk page he was licking - why should he interfere in my communication, be rude, and not apologise?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 07:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This was my request to neutral homer -

Hi! I strongly object to your disruptive ignorant page stalking, and misleading comments. While you are entitled to your opinions, I find your unfounded accusations of blackmail, and negative remarks about my intelligence offensive. If you apologise on my talk page I will not complain further.

[[136]] You will see that he page stalked my complaint about another editor page stalking, and responded to my complaint that he accused me of blackmail by doing the same thing again. If he wont apologise, I request he be blocked for a week to stop him making unfounded accusations against me. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 07:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@L'Origine: I said on the aforementioned talk page: "Blackmailing an admin, not a smart move, one that will get you nowhere but another block." Now, I'm not sure what in there you found "offensive", but it doesn't warrant an apology.

While we are on the subject of apologies, when someone demands one while threatening "further complaints", one isn't going to get the response they seek. I'm not going to apologize just because you think you are owed one. If you think you were wronged, I can't help ya. Nothing I said warrants an apology and you won't be getting one. Like real life, here at Wikipedia, you aren't owed anything.

Now, take Qwyrxian's advice and go about your business. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have User:JamesBWatson on my watchlist and have for awhile. Also for the record, I will not apologize to avoid a block as I have nothing to apologize for. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Any chance of a not here block? The user name "L'Origine du monde" refers to File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg which is a magnificent piece of art, but coupled with the user's contribs indicates that Flyer22 is going to need help soon, and given the user's outbursts it would be kinder to give a firm response now. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support Userpage desecration and fifty lashes with a wet noodle. That being said I find the demands for "sincere" apologies to be rather weak. Shit happens, mistakes are made but threats of further complaints or actions reeks of an implied legal threat or a problem with WP:STICK. Move on. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel perfectly justified in complaining about neutralhomer rudely interfering in my talk, and repeatedly accusing me of blackmail. This is not appropriate behaviour. I also strongly object to him starting this ani, as an unaffected editor, without even giving an explanation on my home page. I feel that his actions constitute bullying. The fact that he is unwilling to admit that his accusations were wrong, and repeats them should be recognised. He started this ANI, on a matter which has otherwise nothing to do with him - does he not deserve censure. With regard to apologies- shit may happen, but when you clearly (look at my talk page) explain to people what has gone wrong, and they persistently fail to understand simple concepts it is wrong.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 09:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative not punitive. Any editor can bring something here even if not directly involved with the dispute...WP:TROUT for no discussion but no big deal...I'd suggest that you drop both sticks and walk away you can continue to complain but right now if you notice it is starting to {{WP:BOOMERANG]] on you.. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. Still rather hurt by the ban :) ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 09:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note: block, not ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

NH should have attempted to discuss with editor before opening the ANI thread -- ya know, like it says at the top of the page? NE Ent 01:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

L'Origine du monde got screwed over by the socking / check user machinery -- which is a reflection of the limitations of technology, not malfeasance on the part of administrators. While there's nothing that can be done about the past, tolerance of her understandable frustration is appropriate. NE Ent 11:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, but that does not excuse them from dropping the stick and stopping harassing everyone who was involved, from the blocker, to those who declined the unblock, to those who removed talkpage access, to those who reported their extremely bizarre behaviour. Their continued actions show that a block of SOME type was actually a requirement, as opposed to trying to convince the community that they're a possibly fantastic editor. Accusing people of not knowing what they're allowed to do is ridiculous, unfounded, and plain ol' wrong (note: I'm only here because at least 4 of the people they're harassing are on my watchlist) ES&L 16:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Update After almost a day away, they're back - and still refusing to drop the damned stick. ES&L 22:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have disengaged from this thread as my last post (besides this one) on this was at 07:17 UTC on September 9th. I've been working on other articles. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

User Jerry Pepsi continues to be malicious

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

---

Not sure why you continue to let https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jerry_Pepsi&action=edit&redlink=1 maliciously edit but if you look at the edit he just did recently, he undid the amount of episodes aired which are 11, he reverted it back to 10; he undid one of the episode listings, he undid one the story points. he continues to act maliciously. it had been a few days since the page was edited, under the impression there had been a truce reached. However, he continues to play tit for tat and enter false information and just behave in an inappropriate way. the page at question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory:_Married_%26_Dating (Tvfanatics (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvfanatics (talk • contribs) 17:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@Tvfanatics: Is there a particular reason you have neither discussed this matter at the article's talk page or notified the user about this ANI report? Your refusal to discuss at the talk page was mentioned the last time you filed an ANI report against Jerry Pepsi. —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• How much longer must this continue? Tvfanatics is a SPA that is apparently used by multiple people and may also be a sockpuppet of User:Swingerlove. How is continuing to allow these people to edit this one article and hurl constant accusations beneficial to the project? Please, end all of our misery and permanently block this editor. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@JerryPepsi: what are you talking about? there is only one person using this account and it is ME, MYSELF AND I. ANd I have no affiliation with Swingerlove, take it up with them. I love how you are trying to deflect from the fact that you are malicious and reverting edits because you have control issues and not because you are concerned about the veracity of the page. Please block user Jerry pepsi from editing. (Tvfanatics (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

TVFantatics has been operating as an SPA. He refrained from editing while the page was protected (other than a request to have his edits replaced) and quickly returned here when his changes were questioned and he was asked to discuss. This editor cannot contribute productively. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@JerryPepsi: you're really good at deflecting from your malicious edits. can you tell us all why you continue to undo factual edits, like the fact that 11 episodes aired, but you reverted the edit to 10 episodes? i would love to hear your answer to this question (Tvfanatics (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

This is most likely the last time anyone will warn you about this: Do not refer to his edits as malicious. It is a violation of WP:NPA. He has been trying to discuss the issue with you, and you have done nothing but open multiple ANI reports against him for it. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Not true. Look at the history, he started this by accusing me of vandalism. I am simply a fan and entering the correct information and he continues to undo the edits without reason. I have tried to talk to him and engage him and all he does is undo the edits. We will keep going I guess since no one seems to want to stop him from editing this page. (Tvfanatics (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)) I have an email from the wikipedia information team (Axl Matulic)and he agrees with me that my edits were not "vandalism" and that Jerry Pepsi was out of line saying that, yet, i speak the truth, that he being malicious and vindictive, and you threaten my account? this is weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvfanatics (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't be a fan, be an editor. Confirm via reliable sources that your edit is valid. Include said reliable sources. If someone reverts you, discuss it with them. It takes two to tango and you are the one not looking good at the moment. 129.9.104.9 (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please show Diffs of the instances in which you initiated communication in a civil manner with Jerry Pepsi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.82.89 (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Today "And no, jerry pepsi did not try to talk to us/me once when the page was locked, I don't know why you are saying that." Aug. 29 Aug. 28 192.76.82.89 (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

We have done that over and over!! The official source of information is the show itself, I get all the info from the showtime show page! How more official can you get??? And I have tried to speak with Jerry pepsi, he started it by accusing me of vandalism, and wikipedia agreed with me that it was NOT, so he was trying to start drama! he is unreasonable! i have done nothing butdo accurate edits, and there are many fans on wikipedia. that is ridiculous, i see edits from fans all the time.

@JerryPepsi: i know you are signing in with your IP address, I know you are the one asking for DIFFS, go to your user page, the very first entry "what's the deal?" you are passive aggressive and you think you own the page for some reason. i also have Axl Matulic from wikipedia acknowledging that some of your edits were spiteful. I can post the email here or forward to ADMIN if they want. (Tvfanatics (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

Perhaps no one has explained the principles of Truth versus Verifiable. Perhaps if you engaged in the project or article discussion pages Jerry Pepsi would be willing to explain the manual of style to you as well. Also, I am not Jerry Pepsi and I invite a CU to investigate that. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

TVFanatics, Note that you doubled the size of ANI. I fixed that and put your intended edit back in. And I am not Jerry... 129.9.72.10 (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I suggest you go to the talk page of the article you are editing and DISCUSS the edits you want to make and why. Removing last names, why? Episode numbers, why? Revert war, NO! 129.9.72.10 (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have asked him on his page - go to his user page and you will see - I continue to ask him why he reverts the edits and he doesnt respond, he just reverts. the show doesn't use last names anywhere, it's what it says on the show page, so i am reflecting the accuracy of the show. 4 characters's last names were used because their names appeared in an article. i have been looking for a reference that shows the other characters last names but there is none. he hasn't found one either but he keeps reverting . and he reverts the epsiode numbers and i don't know why. that is a question for jerry pepsi (and he reverts the fact that one of the girls has been a girlfriend for 3 years!! it says so on the show page). (Tvfanatics (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

I will not comment on a content dispute. That is not what ANI is for. Also, I have informed Axl that you have mentioned him here. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is a content dispute. I also don't see malice, even though in the early edits on 28 August, Tvfanatics was removing sources that Jerry Pepsi restored - I don't think it was done with intent to disrupt. I think it's best that both parties sit down, take a deep breath or two (or more than two, if that's your thing :) ), and start discussing article content at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Continued policy violations from User:TonyTheTiger at WT:FOUR (close requested)

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 know, we're tired of reading these. However, over the past two days Tony has not only edited another user's talk page comments (diff), which fortunately he has not repeated, but implicitly accused editors who disagree with him with be racists (i.e. personal attacks). He uses the term five times in describing a proposed closure with which he disagrees, implying that the editor who formulated the suggested closure (Cdtew) is racist. One of the most telling quotes from this is

"Item 1 of the above closure goes way beyond any non-racist interpretation "Should this project's criteria (and the eligibility of articles for those criteria) be determined by community consensus or by an elected project director?" Yes there is consensus not to have the director determine the criteria, but how racist do you have to be to say that means there is consensus that the director/leader will be relieved of all other responsibilities.

When challenged to support his PAs with diffs, his reply was "Racism in this case is like pornography. I know it when I see it.", with a lengthy diatribe against the proposed closure which seems to imply other editors are likewise racists: "They have cleverly waited until after the traffic from the less involved participants has died down before making their outlandish suggestions." When given a final warning, his reply was "I don't know what else to call it. I could say that everybody is playing dumb if you want". Though Tony may be right that the proposed closure is irregular, he has yet to provide any support for his claims that the opposition he faces is racism.

Could we please have a non-involved admin deal out the necessary reprimanding? I'm too involved with the WP:FOUR issues to do any blocking or otherwise use the admin tools. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Who said this "Though Tony may be right that the proposed closure is irregular"?---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• That was me. Don't split up my post. Irregular here should be read as "not according to current consensus on the process", not as "there is ill-dealings going on", and "may" is "perhaps". You raise a fairly decent point, but immediately render it moot by playing the race card. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me or does Tony appear to have a complete lack of clue as to the use of the term "racist"? I remember a thread some years ago where Tony made the same accusations of racism again using his complete misinterpretation of the word. However, when challenged on it, he'd obfuscate as to his definition of it thus leaving participants unwilling/unable to sanction him for what is a personal attack in every way, shape or form. Quite frankly, regardless of his interpretation, the litany of racism accusations should be grounds for a block of some sort. Blackmane (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco, like I said. You can read the RFC, it asks two questions. You want to expand it to grant you permission to change the administration of WP:FOUR around in all other ways. It was an RFC about one element of my claimed director role and you want to use it to usurp all other roles. You have been playing games for a month trying all kinds of administrative actions to put pressure on me for this and that. You have failed at several MFDs and now you have baited me into actions at the current RFC by pretending not to understand what it was about and pretending not to know what an appropriate close is based on the questions put up for discussion. If you act as a racist, I will call you one whether I can prove it or not. No amount of reprimanding will ever silence this portion of my personality. Stop pretending not to know how to read in an attempt to bait my into another ANI.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

?!? How in the world is he acting as a racist? Please, illuminate us to your thought process here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Tony, you need to define your meaning of "racist". Are you saying that Crisco is making some sort of biased judgement against based on your ethnicity? Blackmane (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm assuming that's what he means. Odd, being called a racist after all the articles I've written on non-white subjects (significantly more than articles I've written on white subjects). Seriously, is that not a blatant enough PA for Tony to be blocked to calm down? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Racism isn't limited to "non-whites".--v/r - TP 12:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm - I have seen some stupidity over at WP:FOUR but this just has to be by far the most stupid remark from TTT that I have EVER seen! They seem to be trying to play EVERY card and cling to EVERY straw to stay in "power" as director of WP:FOUR but it's just not working. If anyone wants to revive a topic ban discussion then go right ahead... I just looked in the mirror and my face is probably going to bruise! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 09:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Who acknowledged that the suggested close at FOUR was irregular?---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Who keeps on trying to FORCE editors to stick to a "my way or the highway" mentality? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

PantherLeapord, here is something for you to think about: Who has done more to maintain the Four Award? You or Tony? I'm guessing it is Tony. That leads me to another question: Why did you take it upon yourself to rip the project away from the user who has done so much of the maintenance work there? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Here's a question for you, AS. What's with assuming bad faith? Panther and Cdtew only began to be involved with the discussion after Tony's last trip to ANI, and neither seem to be specifically targetting Tony. They want to reach a community consensus, as required by policy, and not have any individual with ownership issues abuse other editors for sport. I don't think either have a personal grudge against Tony, and if (for instance) I were in Tony's position and acting as Tony has acted they would still act the same. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, here I am, waking up and reading the news and Wikipedia, and I find that I've been accused five times of being a racist. I'm not quite sure where the accusation stems from (unless "self-appointed Four Award director" is a race, in which case I suppose I'm guilty). TTT, I don't know if you're white, black, asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, hispanic, time lord, Dalek, dog, cat, or a who from Whoville. Nothing that's I'm aware of wold even suggest to me what your race is. I have never made a single comment that casts aspersions on anyone due to their race, and I am personally deeply offended at your accusation. It appears to me that you are yet again resorting to senseless distractions because you're clearly losing the RfC. I ask an Administrator to take some form of action against Toney because I simply won't stand him slandering my name further. (FYI, I warned him about altering my comments on his talk several days ago). This occurred thereafter. Cdtew (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me also add, I was a completely uninvolved editor until I (perhaps stupidly) tried to come up with what I thought was a common sense resolution. I've never had more than a sentence of interaction with TTT before this, and have never made a personal attack on him. In fact, I've defended him from personal attacks! . Cdtew (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• I second the request to have sanctions brought against Tony for this series of egregious personal attacks. I do not take false accusations of racism lightly, and view it as no less a personal attack than any of the words filtered on most talk boards. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• When I read the latest changes on the RFC myself, I wondered what to do about it. I agree TTT is completely overboard with his accusations. He is also stonewalling the discussion about closing the RFC. Tony is absolutely welcome to hold any position in any RFC. But vehemently opposing any close that does not agree with his reading is crossing the line. I support a topic ban for editing anything related to the FOUR award for at least the duration of the current AfC. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for FOUR award. Last time I argued that TTT should be given a third chance despite his previous block for edit-warring and then his massive canvassing and accusations of bad-faith. Only days ago after he tried to ping me back into the discussion, I urged him again to disengage for a while. It seems clear at this point, though, that he's either unwilling or unable to behave himself in basic ways, and is going to continue to keep finding new ways to cause drama the situation until banned from the page. There was no reason for a user page icon to turn into WWIII; we need to start de-escalating. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Disruptive behaviour / personal attacks by TTT again, throwing around the word "racist" completely inappropriately, as he did in June 2012, which led to a block for 48 hours. AN link, TTT talk page link. Instead of backing down when the matter is brought to ANI, TTT keeps going: "If you act as a racist, I will call you one whether I can prove it or not." This is well over the line and I am blocking TTT for a further 48 hours. Bencherlite^Talk 12:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block I was actually about to do it myself, but indefinite. I would have blocked TTT until he either identified which remarks were racist, what his definition of racism is, or retracted the remarks.--v/r - TP 12:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block I've been thinking about indefinitely blocking Tony too. I'd support the block being extended if no progress is made in resolving this clusterfuck in the next 48 hours. The behaviour over WP:FOUR is getting to the stage where it's going to deter editors from creating content if they feel they're going to be dragged into messy drama about awards when they're quite content editing, making good content and avoiding the usual drama areas (i.e here). Nick (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Observation – the only reason I know TTT's race is because Crisco has chosen to nominate for deletion a page about Tony in his user space whilst also in conflict with him at WT:FOUR. Tony's racism comments were over the top and likely reflect that he has been subject to racism offline, but I think Crisco has contributed to Tony feeling that he is being attacked. Tony has been treated badly in the FOUR discussion, which does not excuse or justify his comments, but it does explain his frustration. Maybe some genuinely unbiased and dispassionate eyes on the FOUR discussion might lead to some of Tony's valid points being recognised and separated from the unreasonable posts. EdChem (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• @EdChem: First, the racism comment was directed at me. Second -- "some genuinely unbiased and dispassionate eyes on the FOUR discussion" -- begs that you review my contributions to the discussion, which I believe were entirely fair and neutral. I've never had a cross word with Tony or Crisco, and Tony awarded me the Four Award for Fort Dobbs (North Carolina), while I've had limited interaction with Crisco, but all very positive (off the top of my head) -- so I thought highly of both prior hereto. I called out other users for attacking Tony, I recognized that he was right about the first proposal and my first alternate proposal being a little off-base (hence the striking-through), and then I get my comments edited and called a racist. That sort of capricious nonsensical battleground behavior is why Tony has no excuse for what he's done, regardless of his race, color, creed, or gender. Cdtew (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Cdtew:: I have no reason to believe anyone has actually been racist, Tony's claim in that regard was over the top and I will not attempt to justify or excuse his actions. Your contribution has been much better than most and I was not seeking to criticise you. Unfortunately, most contributors have declined to recognise the validity of anything Tony has written, which has not helped to produce a reasonable outcome. EdChem (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• @EdChem:: I had no knowledge of Tony's race until I stumbled across that user page (after looking through his user space, piqued by his comments about racism), and the MFD came not long after that for reasons that I've outlined there. I think Cdtew has been dispassionate here — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Crisco 1492:: I have no reason to believe anyone has actually been racist, Tony's claim in that regard was over the top, unjustified and more than a little bizarre. Your decision to nominate his userspace page was unwise given the surrounding conflict and I am disappointed that you did not recognise it as likely to be provocative. As far as dispassionate goes, I've watched the debate at WT:FOUR since before I was invited by Tony to participate and I think your "side" has behaved poorly and not taken on board some of Tony's reasonable points. EdChem (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• @EdChem:: Re: MFD: Perhaps, but I was concerned that if I let it be I would forget (I'm somewhat notorious for that). Re: Behaviour: I was not speaking about any "side", and admit that there were transgressions on both "sides". I was saying that Cdtew has been acting quite dispassionately. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco: I maintain that your decision to nominate was poor, having come after the racism accusation just makes it worse. Regarding behaviour, I did not refer to Cdtew, I referred to you - and your actions have not seemed dispassionate to me, they have seemed partisan and TTT is far from the only one who looks bad. TTT has acted foolishly and made an unjustifed accusation and deserves sanction, but it is sad to see that his actions are concealing from notice the poor behaviour of others. EdChem (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Support block - I also note from his block log and talk page this isn't the first time, he has been blocked previously for making accusations of racism against other users and warned a few times. If he isn't learning this lesson then perhaps we should consider longer than a 48 hour block. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Block for quite a while This isn't the first time I've seen TonytheTiger here. Y'all need to be thwapping him for flagrant WP:CIVIL violations too; falsely accusing users of racism is something that needs to be seriously discouraged. Jtrainor (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of racism don't need to be discouraged, they need to be treated much more seriously; especially by those making the accusations. When accusations are flagerantly thrown around, it desensitizes us to real racism. Discouraging it is an effect of that desensitization and the effect of discouraging it will be that legitimate cases will go unheard. We need to step up our responsibility to both be non-discriminatory and treat racism very seriously. Those making the accusations need to realize how serious the accusation is and provide serious evidence so those of us reviewing the accusations can also treat it seriously.--v/r - TP 13:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• FYI: He was blocked about an hour ago for 48 hours by User: Bencherlite. Rgrds. --64.85.215.190 (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Up block to a week 48hrs for the first block makes sense, a repeat of the same behaviour should be met with the obvioius escalation. Thanks to Bencherlite for finding the AN link. That was the one I was referring to in my original comment. Randomly throwing out accusations of racism have the same chilling effect as legal threats and should not be tolerated at all. @IP Bencherlite posted notification of their block above. Blackmane (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hunh, must of skipped over that somehow in all the text and clicking on the diffs, etc., sorry. --64.85.215.190 (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - since he's blocked, it really needs extending. He was blocked for this exact offense just over a year ago, and clearly hasn't learned, so I think the block should go up to a week, just like Blackmane says. I would support an indefinite topic ban from WP:FOUR (as I've said a few times) but not an indef block this time - however, if he ever repeated the unfounded, abusive accusations, then I would definitely support an indef block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban If memory serves me right, something like this happened with Featured Sounds as well. Ban and hand over FOUR to someone else  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic Ban It is disappointing that TTT restored to accusations of racism. It is also disappointing that some people felt it necessary to try and wrest WP:FOUR away from TTT, basically pushing him to the side and acting like his years of contributions didn't matter. This was handled brutally and not just by TTT. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Like I said before, I didn't have a personal stake in this discussion, just brought my relatively neutral viewpoint to the argument. I wouldn't be disclosing everything if I didn't say at this point I'm less neutral, and have been personally offended. That being said, if there's one thing history can teach us, it's that when someone appoints themselves the sole arbiter of anything, they assume the risk of being deposed, violently or otherwise. In that vein, several editors sought to have a policy changed/a circumstance accommodated within existing policy, TTT held himself out as the sole arbiter or the policy and denied the request, and now appears to be losing his grasp to the democracy of the editorship. So, wrest away. Cdtew (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• If he is indeed abusing his position, then that needs to be dealt with. It may be that sanctions are necessary. However, it almost looks to me like some people, not necessarily including you, can hardly wait to completely remove Tony from the Four Award. I really hope it doesn't have to wind up turning out that way. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• We are not trying to tear TTT from WP:FOUR; we are rather trying to make it clear that personal attacks, constant ABF and abuse will not be tolerated! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Precisely. No matter who the editor was, if my first attempt to negotiate a solution (note that I was decidedly neutral at the time) was greeted with "How many MILHIST guys are going to come here to tell me how to run this page?" without any attempt to address the meat of my suggestion, then followed it with a month of edit warring, ABF, canvassing, and personal attacks, I'd be pushing to have the rules determined by consensus. Tony can stay involved with FOUR if he wants, as one of the community, and I don't think anyone has said he shouldn't. There is just no room for a self-declared director who attempts to ignore consensus and assumes bad faith on everyone who doesn't agree with him or her. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Support indef topic ban - It's time to say "Enough is enough" and put our foot down. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Endorse block; honestly since this whole thing started I've been waiting for the racism accusations to appear, having observed Tony's past behavior at ANI, so this is not surprising in the least. It really should be extended to a week as this is the exact same behavior that drew a 48hr block last time and clearly nothing has been learned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Indefinite Block While TTT was out of line with his charges of racism, I can't believe someone tried to delete one of his user pages. That is a provocative act and as long as it didn't have libelous content on it, it's out of line to try to delete it. My question is whether this has been taken to Dispute Resolution. This is a case that is desperately in need of an unbiased third opinion. Use a mediator, this has gotten way too personal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Liz: Check the timeline. Tony's racist attacks came before the page was nominated for deletion. First racist attacks at 13:43 my time, second claims of racism at 14:17, then the MFD at 14:48. Tony cannot claim the MFD as setting him off, unless he's a time lord. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco, the time line also demonstrates the remarkably poor judgment that you have exercised in starting the MfD, as you made the nomination after giving a 'withdraw or face ANI' ultimatum. Liz is correct, the MfD was always going to be provocative in effect (regardless of your intent) and I am disappointed to see an administrator who failed to anticipate that the nomination was a poor decision. EdChem (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• And I have already given a reason why my nomination was immediate, rather than wait a week. I did not intend it as "payback" for anything here or there (though I did understand it could be taken poorly, I expected editors to look at the policy and not "just leave Tony alone"... damn I'm naive). If I found such a page the user space of anyone here I would likely have MFDed it: the policy says keep it short, after all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Support extended block, including indef until they withdraw their remarks and assure us they will not use the term inappropriately again. I would support a topic ban on TTT using the term racism or anything the implies the same thing like racist, racial bias, racial discrimination, racial bigotry etc against other editors or if not that a clear understanding an indef block will result if they use it inappropriately in the future. This previous discussion [137] did not previously understand what racism even means, it sounds like they still don't understand so I don't think they should ever use the term. I would also support a topic ban on TTT from FOUR. Nil Einne (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Endorse block, reserve judgment on other issues, because I do think Tony can use a little breather and step back while still being involved. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I take no position on blocking and have worked collaboratively with Tony in the past. I do agree, though, that Tony needs to cease recklessly throwing around charges of racism. He has been doing that without any basis for years. At DYK, he threw such accusations at me and others back in September 2010 and April 2012 at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 80#DYK date request and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 58#Michigan basketball overload, part 2. Cbl62 (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions TTT is not more at fault than some of the other editors, but I do agree he should retract his accusations. I think we are at the right point though where everyone will walk away and leave it behind them. Xrt6L (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions per AutomaticStrikeout. The MfD is clearly a payback even though Crisco claims it's not. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strange new meaning of "clearly" I was previously unaware of. also, what it has to do with Tony's behavior seems unclear. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support sanctions, especially topic ban and current short-term block. This has been a long-term problem. I suspect he uses the "racism" charge because he is utterly unable to understand -- or possibly incapable of understanding -- why his egotistical behavior is causing problems and thinks, therefore, it must be racism at its root. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support sanctions (block, topic ban, whatever) - I didn't want to weigh in here, but Tony's response to a request for an apology here suggests he does not understand how false claims of racism can be considered personal attacks and/or libel. Until he realises what he's doing is really not cool (for lack of a better word), I think something needs to be done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support the current block (duh), perhaps a longer one (though blocks aren't supposed to be punitive and I think he gets the point). I do not support an indefinite block at this point. Tony has contributed a lot of content and that makes up for some things--though not for accusations of racism, but no doubt any future such accusations will be met with an indefinite block, per admin's discretion. I'd like to see some sort of topic ban somewhere. From Four, for starters. Plus a real short leash on canvassing and other lawyerish disruption.

  Tony, I don't understand why you felt you had to resort to that low kind of insult, but it's obviously coming back to bite you. Did you expect otherwise? I'm sure you won't leave Wikipedia and I for one don't want you to leave (though Lord Jimbo knows we barely ever got along), but it can't go on like this. At some point you'll have to swallow your pride, maybe. I don't know. I wish you the best, but if for you continued contributions to the project means continued disruption, then your glowing career will come to a speedy end. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like activity has died down here over the last couple of days, partly because of the tangential thread over on WP:AN. Would an uninvolved admin please sum this up and close it? Blackmane (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Seconded. Could an uninvolved admin please sum up this thread, enforce any consensus-attained outcomes, and close this thread? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thirded - After the posts from both sides on my talk page (Nasty stuff!) I think it's time to pack up and move on. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 07:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Request temporary interaction ban or other measure

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.

---

Withdrawing my request -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I need a break from Tony. As a quick recap, I started a brief RfC at WT:FOUR after voting against Crisco's proposal for deletion and a failed attempt to get Tony to moderate his own draft RfC. Like Cdtew, I thought I was something of a neutral outside party on this--I'm not involved with MILHIST and have never won the award--but both us of quickly learned that anyone who's not 100% behind Tony gets on the enemies list in a big way. I believe Tony's now approaching 200 posts on more than 150 pages accusing me of bad-faith rigging of the RfC. Ranging from: "In case you are wondering why both of these RFC questions are getting unanimous support, you have masterfully conflated two issues with each one making impossible for anyone to give you anything but the meaningless answer you seek. to this a few hours ago: "*I continue to feel that this is one of the most disingenuous processes I have been involved in on RFC... this sneaky process seems to have been used to make statements about having any leadership without any discussion of the rest of the organization of the project. There seems to be no interest in discussing the organization of the project other than to use an RFC about one role of the leadership to make statements about the overall leadership of the project. This all seems to be an attempt to throw the project to admins who have never expressed an interest in the project" [138] Or see the 150+ posts he made between 6:00 and 8:00 on 20 August, all copies of his claim that I had deliberately crafted my RfC "to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions". Simultaneously, he's shown up at another project I'm initiating; he's already made about 15 posts critiquing it at WT:GAN, going so far as to spend hours creating a massive dataset in his user space to prove his points. Finally another user had to tell him to lay off there, too.[139] Despite direct and explicit requests from me that we not interact with each other for a while, Tony's pinged me back into the debate ("All along, I have said that Khazar2 either did not understand the issues or purposely conflated them so that they were not really posed to the audience"), continues to post at the Million Award page, and continues to post his accusations at WT:FOUR. I've turned the other cheek on most of this--I voted against the last proposal to topic-ban TTT, for example, and I've voluntarily withdrawn from further discussion at WT:FOUR--but now that we're approaching hundreds of posts, his persistence is starting to wear me down. Is it possible for me to request here that Tony leaves me in peace for just a few weeks, or is the best solution to simply take a break from Wikipedia until this blows over? As a third alternative, is it allowed for me to simply withdraw my RfC? Frankly, the FOUR debate strikes me as a fundamentally trivial issue, and it's not worth this level of harassment. If there's no administrative will to police something like this, I'm prepared to just say he wins, take a break, and then get back to regular editing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that I'm posting here at all is a clear sign that I need that wikibreak. Sorry for my own role in this drama, and I'll see y'all in a month. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Discussion on this topic has moved to WP:AN — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

User:MadmanBot is malfunctioning

Parable of the Light of Allah

there is no duplicate writing on this page yet the bot is having the trouble. it says it copied from that site but now the article is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.63.112.124 (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

In the box at the top of the article it says: "If MadmanBot is in error: Simply note so on this article's discussion page.", so that's what you need to do. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No malfunctioning. Article has several matching phrases. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 12:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You should not simply copy and paste from other websites as you seem to have done here (the text in the body of the article can be found on various websites and there is a particularly close match here). We might now need to do a great deal of rollback and deletion of your recent contributions as they appear to breach the law of copyright and the policies of Wikipedia. NebY (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

History merge needed

Could an administrator please have a look at the histories of Blackout (drug-related amnesia) and Blackout (alcohol-related amnesia) and perform a history merge if necessary? It appears to me as if there was a cut and paste move. Thanks. 173.62.242.128 (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's fixed. Thanks for the heads up.--v/r - TP 12:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Volksjäger162

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

---

This user is doing edit warring, original research and is abolutely not able to reach a consensus. Look at Georgian alphabet: Revision history and Talk:Georgian alphabet. The article is now protected, soon after Volksjägers last edit.
P.S. If someone has time and is interested in the subject, please help to improve this article. At the moment it looks awful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Хаченци (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This needs to go here -> Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring - KiraChinmoku _{(T, ¤)} 14:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This does not looks awful and I am not edit warring. Your last edit was Weasel. Writing "Widely believed" does not looks very nice, as you think it does. It was protected because of your last edit, which is weasel as I already said. You kept using CAPS in some words in talk page, then you kept calling Georgian point nationalistic. You are one, which does not reaches consensus. You are also one who did not reply talk page on Armenian alphabet after I brought proof, so if I edit something you will say consensus was not achieved. Thats your tactic. Everyone knows it. Check your history as well. Do I have Edit warring history or you? I have clean history and will have, because I know WP rules. --Volksjäger (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Volksjäger162, would you care to tell us the name of the account you used while you were learning the rules? You appear to have only been editing as Volksjäger162 for three days, but seem to know a great deal about the inner workings of Wikipedia... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

WP Rules are simple and nice. If you want, you can read them. Here is other way as well, to read before you register. I always read rules, requirements, before I join community. --Volksjäger (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

So you have never heard of Obitauri (talk · contribs), and the fact you've been pulled up on ANI for edit warring in the same topic area three days after that editor was indeffed is just one big co-incidence, right? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know already how to talk to this user. All he is suggesting is doing original research, writing not the scholar view but the data used by scholars and allow the reader to choose the right one. reader is not a scholar, neither we are. We can not use what is wrong and what is right. Currently in the article it is mentioned in large sections why the foreign scholars think GA was created in 5c and why Georgian scholars think it existed before. Such statements have nothing to do in the article. One can create a new one, called "The problem of origin of GA" and write everything there, if its so necessary. Хаченци (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Benobikenobi

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 new account, edit-warring over Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. Has been informed on User talk:Benobikenobi that the articles are under WP:1RR restrictions, and has been repeatedly told that their edits are against policy, but evidently out to prove a point: "I don't care what other editors or moderators have to say on the matter! If they want to block me fine". I suggest that an admin obliges... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

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

User is trying to take me to edit warring, breaks wikipedia rules and calls me duplicate

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.

---

Hallo. User Хаченци is trying to take me into edit warring and removes "Citation Needed" from date, which is not cited in article Armenian_alphabet. Britannica suggests that oldest script of Armenian alphabet is dated back to 9-10th century, when Armenian traditional view suggests date of 406 AD. Archaeological proof is more reliable than attribution or traditional view. Still we must contain both point of view in date but seems this user tries to put only point of view he/she agrees. He already reverted edit of "Citation needed" without any evidence or reason given. He calls me duplicate account, as well... Please take a look at this. Thank you. --Volksjäger162 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Additional Notes: User Хаченци has posted in WP:SPI regarding his accusation of sockpuppetry ([140]). In addition to this, I did place request in WP:RPP due to my own suspicions of this turning into an edit war. KiraChinmoku _{(T, ¤)} 14:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not make any edit after he reverted 2 edits without given reason. I try to keep this article calm to avoid it frozen on Wrong Version. I only discuss this and try to achieve consensus. I checked history of this user, he has history of Edit warring.

I will try to keep situation in normal conditions. Thank you. --Volksjäger162 (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed that entry at WP:SPI for procedural reasons. Quick checkuser requests are for cases that do not include sockpuppetry. Хаченци has been informed how to file a proper sockpuppet investigation. De728631 (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing, edit warring, talk page guidelines

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

---

I was hoping to get a few extra eyes on Canstusdis (talk · contribs). I ran across them a while ago at the Joseph Smith article, where they seem to be edit warring against multiple users (they've been riding at 3RR for two days now). As far as I can tell they have been exhibiting similar behavior at Hermann Fegelein as well, warring against multiple users and accusing others of bad faith. They have been asked many times to lay off the reverting, to discuss and build consensus, and to follow BRD ([141] [142] [143]) but they generally respond by ignoring or blanking ([144] [145]). Anyway, the reason I came here instead of AN3 is because of the disruptive way they've been editing their own and others' comments, reverting anybody who tries to fix it. Here they selectively edit a user's post on their talk page, blanking portions, perhaps in an attempt to sanitize the talk page. Here they removed part of their own comment that had been responded to, making the following comment look silly/confusing. When I informed them of WP:Redact and tried to teach them how to do it right with <del></del> tags, they reverted me (citing WP:Redact). Later, when their blatant editing of other users' comments was undone, they reverted that as well. (These last two are after being informed of WP:Redact and being asked to stop.) Anyway, I'm seeing a trend of being generally disruptive, and wasting the time and trying the patience of lots of people (myself included). I would like for an outside administrator to step in and let them know that this type of behavior is inappropriate. Thanks ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I to have notice the same thing. User:Canstusdis has a habit of editing others comments and his own comments after others have replied, in order to change there meaning to make them agree with him or make them confusing. This is a violation of WP:TPOC and WP:REDACTED and I have example and even more blatant example of his editing of others comments to change there meanings.

1. Example 1 - He completely changed my post to his talk page, changing its meaning to make it sound like I agreed with his very rude comments made on another page. My comments were very non-conformational.
2. Example 2 - When user Bahooka reverted the edit in example 1, Canstusdis put back the inappropriate changes and told user Bahooka to "Leave my talk page alone please", reposting my inappropriately modified comment.

Canstusdis dose this order to change the meaning of what others say, in order to create agreements to his conduct when none exists or just causing confusion. This is on top of his Edit Warring over the Joseph Smith page as noted by Adjwilley above. While I am involved in my two examples, I wish to note that I have not been involved in examples listed by Adjwilley. As an editor uninvolved in the 3RR issues on Joseph Smith, I think it's clear that Canstusdis has no problem violating WP:TPOC, WP:REDACTED, and GAMING the 3RR rules.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked. There's no doubt that reverting to their preferred version four times in 40 hours is edit warring, and perhaps also gaming of the 3RR.[146][147][148][149] I've blocked for 24 hours and also warned them about disruptive talkpage editing and battleground demeanour. Bishonen | talk 13:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC).

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

Enkyo2 still hounding me

I started a thread here last week about User:Enkyo2 posting completely incomprehensible talk-page comments and generally being disruptive. User:Qwyrxian pointed out how this problem had been going on for years, and if it didn't show signs of improving Enkyo2 would probably get indefinitely blocked. User:Kim Dent-Brown then asked Enkyo2 to explain himself. Enkyo2 disappeared from Wikipedia for 5 days, before re-emerging two hours after the thread got archived, and opposing an RM I had made.[150][151] Enkyo2's other edits since returning have all been not-so-subtle jabs at my activity during his 5-day absence: I posted a discussion of Louis Frédéric's Japan Encyclopedia on WP:RSN, and Enkyo2's last six edits have all been to the Louis Frédéric article or to create a new article on the Japan Encyclopedia.[152][153][154] His edits to the These edits are obviously a weak attempt to undermine the RSN thread, as they strongly emphasize Harvard University Press, six editions in French and English, Donald Richie says great things about it ... Could someone please help me with this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, we know his comment on Talk:Empress Gemmei#Requested move was meant to undermine me because his argument was just as incoherent as ever, and all but one of his sources say the opposite of what he claims. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You, again? --Shirt58 (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the Enkyo2 problem (which as I said hasn't been resolved yet because he deliberately sabotaged the thread by waiting for it to get archived) I think I've opened one ANI thread in the last three weeks. What exactly do you mean by that? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The previous discussion, just archived before Enkyo restarted editing, is here. I had asked Enkyo to respond but no response was forthcoming. To be honest I'm also finding Hijiri's continual complaints a little shrill but I can understand his/her frustration when faced with an almost completely opaque and incomprehensible style of communication from Enkyo. I'd love the two of them to get on as they seem like topic experts but neither seems to be able to co-operate with the other. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that User:Enkyo2 was previously blocked for one year by Arbcom in 2011 under a different account name in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands, and he has been the subject of an RFC/U. He was previously topic banned in 2009 in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty. A sample of his style of reasoning can be seen in this version of his talk page. In my opinion, it's reasonable for him to explain himself here and to take measures to ensure that this pattern doesn't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Since I have a bit of background in Japanese history I reviewed Enkyo's edits. Hijiri likes to add information from modern Japanese encyclopedias, and Enkyo likes to add information from older primary sources or poorly edited Western encyclopedias. This information is mostly NPOV and not necessarily wrong. Both editors are using the sources to justify straightforward information and pretty ordinary views. I did not find any articles being especially worsened by Enkyo's behavior. The main problem is that Enkyo has very poor communication. When he wants to make a brief point he seems to be able to do so (often using the passive tense), but when he has to reply to a sustained argument he descends into incomprehensibility. He attempts to avoid pertinent discussions by not responding, as he has done here, or by changing his username, as he did multiple times on Simple English Wikipedia. He also seems to think that he can make up for his "subjective" communication failures by adding "objective" information to related Wikipedia articles, as is the case here, but that's not especially bad if he really does have relevant information to add. As ARBCOM warned before, Enkyo has to be humble and recognize that he cannot edit if he isn't able to justify himself coherently. I attempted to piece together his view at WP:RSN but the discussion is already confused by the highly personal nature of his argument with Hijiri. Shii (tock) 18:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@Enkyo2: - I'm trying to WP:AGF here but the fact you stopped editing during the previous ANI discussion, and then re-appeared as soon as it was archived, is concerning. Please can you explain your absence? GiantSnowman 18:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Question: Could this be taken as a "request for clarification and amendment" to the most recent Arbcom case? That is, since this is essentially the same problem as Enkyo2 was admonished for before, could we process it through Arbcom expeditiously (i.e., without a whole new case) on the grounds that the temporary (1 year) ban did not alleviate the problem? And if anyone not convinced that there is a problem here, please take a look at User:Enkyo2/Sandbox-Fukue, found by Kim Dent-Brown, which I have to presume is how he presumes to answer the current concern. Note also that after Kim Dent-Brown advised him not to attempt to use such a format and length of response, his next step was to increase the length by about 50%. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The ArbCom case from 2011 included this advice to Tenmei:

Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.

I think the wished-for change in Tenmei/Enkyo's style has manifestly not occurred. Whether the disruption it causes is sufficient for a block, a topic ban, a return to the ArbCom case is harder to judge. I'd really appreciate a few more opinions in here. We either have a knowledgeable, able topic expert who is being unfairly hounded by trivial complaints, or a slyly disruptive editor who masks the damage he causes in a swirl of hard-to-understand verbiage. If there's a third explanation I don't see it. Either way we need to do something; inaction in either case would be inexcusable. More voices, please.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@Kim Dent-Brown: Thank you for the way this diff was structured. --Enkyo2 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think it is the latter. As for the solution, I am inclined to an indef block. GiantSnowman 11:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef, unless we hear something to convince us that the same pattern won't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri's tendency to make arguments personal is not the problem here, and it's kind of ironic that Enkyo's planned response has an image of the WP:DR pyramid without understanding that. I wonder if Enkyo speaks Japanese, in which case he might understand the following: 以魚駆蠅するな。子曰く、改めざるときは、吾之を如何ともする末きのみ。 Shii (tock) 14:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

In part, this thread is about Hijiri's twisting small content issues into something else. It is about "spin". Kim Dent-Brown got it right. Despite Hijiri's complaints, my contributions history shows the work of a "knowledgeable, able topic expert who is being unfairly hounded"? It bears repeating that Shirt58 got it right at the beginning of this thread.

QUESTION: Is the pattern of Hijiri's attack strategy mirrored elsewhere? Yes.

• See Canada-based IP user posting problematically in hundreds of RMs in which Hijiri "gins up" an ANI complaint as a direct response to a diff posted at Talk:Empress Gemmei.
• See above where Hijiri "gins up" an ANI complaint because I posted a diff at Talk:Empress Gemmei.

QUESTION: Is the fact that Hijiri initiated a series of ANI threads significant? Yes, it is. This newest thread is only another pretext in a pattern which cannot be parsed neatly -- see here and here and here? With each new complaint, I would have thought that Hijiri88 reveals himself to be like the boy who cried wolf?

ARGUMENT: In the RSN thread, my words are refutation and counterargument backed up with reasoning and supporting evidence in articles about Japan Encyclopedia and Louis-Frédéric Nussbaum and the Harvard University Press. Is this not exactly what I should have done? In contrast, Hijiri attacks me here and in this ANI thread.

EdJohnston makes a good point when he argues that it's reasonable to take measures to ensure that this pattern doesn't continue. However, he and others seem to overlook what Rjanag correctly identified as the underlying pattern. The four ANI threads in quick succession present a string of highly personal complaints. This was a pattern pushed by Hijiri, and my role was the target. --Enkyo2 (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Enkyo, if you think you are being attacked, don't lower yourself to the attacker's level. At this point, I don't think anything in this thread requires admin action, but consider yourself warned about your communication style. Be gentler in the future and don't hesitate to ask other editors for help. ウィキペディアは弱肉強食の社会ではない。論争の時、英語のコミュニケーションの問題を考えてください。喧嘩の思いをおいて、他のユーザーに丁寧に頼むほうがいい。 Shii (tock) 21:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@Shii: -- Yes, I do think I am being attacked. We learn from experience.

It should be unsurprising that my experience has taught me to hesitate to ask other editors for help. I would have thought my diffs here and in this thread were asking for help. --Enkyo2 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Kim Dent-Brown that inaction in this case would be inexcusable. Assuming good faith, I take Enkyo's obscurity of communication to stem from inability, rather than sly trickery. Inability to communicate isn't a crime or moral failure, but it is a serious hindrance towards editing a collaborative encyclopedia. Therefore, however expert and advanced Enkyo is in his field, WP:COMPETENCE comes into play, especially since their inablility to collaborate has been such a long-term problem, showing no improvement after a one-year arbcom block. That's the biggest problem; but it doesn't help, either, that the recent chronology of their actions does look like moral failure or trickery. Leaving for five days when an ANI thread is starting to lean towards sanctions and reemerging as soon as the thread is archived, is… well, I don't find Hijiri's term "sabotage" unreasonable. I support an indefinite ban. Bishonen | talk 00:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: - do you mean "block" or "ban"? GiantSnowman 09:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I mean ban, but I'm agreeable to supporting a block as an alternative. Bishonen | talk 09:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC).

• I agree with Shii in his/her posting of 21:02, 10 September 2013. There is no need for admin action at this stage. I think the advice Shii gave is very good advice.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@Enkyo2: - I'm still waiting for a response to my earlier question and good faith is waring very thing - the fact you stopped editing during the previous ANI discussion, and then re-appeared as soon as it was archived, is concerning. Please can you explain your absence? GiantSnowman 09:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: There is more than one answer; and your question offers an opportunity to convert this incident into something constructive. The short answer is that I had other things to do in real life. I can be more specific, if you like. It also accurate to explain that I didn't know what to say. Why not keep this thread open while I draft a more specific response? --Enkyo2 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

A less-than-satisfactory response, I'm afraid. Was it real life interfering, or was it the fact that you didn't know what to say? The fact you are taking days to 'draft' a response fills me with dread. GiantSnowman 14:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have a question to Enkyo2, too, which goes to good faith in regard to their post above. Enkyo, when Kim Dent-Brown posts "We either have a knowledgeable, able topic expert who is being unfairly hounded by trivial complaints, or a slyly disruptive editor who masks the damage he causes in a swirl of hard-to-understand verbiage. If there's a third explanation I don't see it." and you respond by saying "Kim Dent-Brown got it right. Despite Hijiri's complaints, my contributions history shows the work of a "knowledgeable, able topic expert who is being unfairly hounded"", is it because you don't understand what Kim said ( = the "either—or" syntax), or because you're trying to give the false impression that Kim supports you and says you're being unfairly hounded? I don't see a third explanation. Please respond. Bishonen | talk 10:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC).

@Bishonen: There is a third explanation. Thank you for the opportunity this question provides. Thank you for the way this question was structured. --Enkyo2 (talk)

Enkyo, you should recognize that you have just "dodged the question" here, by saying that there is "a third explanation" without giving it. I am beginning to see the benefits of a ban, although we could at least hold off for this intriguing promise of a "full response". Shii (tock) 15:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• [Moved by Bishonen.] @Hijiri88: "Sabotage" in this context is a curious word choice. I don't understand where this comes from. Is this the first time this word has been used in a ANi thread? Where can I read more about this?

  The heading of this thread leads me to believe that it is primarily about Hijiri's complaint that I am somehow doing something which is identified at WP:HOUND. Is this not the subject of this thread?

  There is a lot packed into the paragraph with which this thread begins. If I am struggling to know which things to acknowledge, which things to ignore and what order a response should take, it is understandable, is it not? --Enkyo2 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've moved Enkyo's recent post down from near the top to where people will actually notice it as a new post, i. e. just above here. I hope the move will be an advantage; if not, just move it back; I'm trying to help you here, Enkyo. As for which things to acknowledge etc: you need to answer direct questions, for instance Giant Snowman's and mine above. I don't understand why you're practically ignoring all that and circling back to the first paragraph of the thread, which you've already responded to. Bishonen | talk 15:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC).

Hijiri is an excellent and scrupulous editor. He has exacting standards of high-quality verification, and has been elaborately responsive to comments by others. Summing up the evidence and comments (particularly from Shii) Enkyo has often favoured poor quality primary or tertiary sources, which itself, in controversial issues likely to worry other editors, is itself problematical. I have a temperamental affinity with Hijiri's way of going about encyclopedic verification, (a bias, I admit) and I know that coping with frivolous, gamey sourcing by loose cannon editors can be exasperating. Enkyo has been suspended once, has changed identities, can write straightforwardly but, to judge from many comments, does use inordinately complicated language verging on the incomprehensible at crucial moments when he is challenged (sounds like a dodge, and as for dodging, he fell silent when asked to clarify his behaviour, only to pop up when the thread was archived. None of this looks good. It is a behavioural issue, and trying to turn the complaint into WP:Boomerang against Hijiri is, at this point, a further sign of manipulative or tactical tendencies. Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. We should not have to choose between Team-Hijiri88 and Enkyo2. Both enrich the lives of many people by making useful edits to the encyclopedia. Both have faults. Lt us work with Enkyo2 to help him/her correct his/her faults. That may mean an element of carrot and stick - the potential stick would be a series of escalating blocks. There is no need for all this wiki-warfare.

As for Enkyo2's explanation, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. He/she probably felt bullied. I know how that feels.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Toddy, could you please explain how you propose the community "work" with Enkyo2 when 5 years of previous "work"—ranging from polite discussion, to requests for change, to specific explanations of what's wrong, to complaints, to noticeboard posts, to RFCUs, and, eventually, to 2 trips to ArbCom, admonishments from Arbcom, and a 1 year ban—haven't changed anything? I don't think we can fundamentally change a person's communication style. This needs to stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Would he/she agree to be mentored? This would have to have some fairly stiff agreed conditions, with specified and escalating penalties if he/she broke them. If he/she is willing, I would mentor him/her. But the conditions would have to be negotiated before I would start.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Read Qwyrxian's comment in the previous thread. That too was already tried. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Presumably this comment. Bishonen | talk 11:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC).

• I have reviewed each of Enkyo2's responses above, and they are as reported—indistinguishable from the output of a Postmodernism Generator. Editors should not have to talk to an echo chamber, then have ANI reports derailed by meaningless replies that happen to use some appropriate words. Toddy1's suggestion of working with Enkyo2 appears completely unworkable to me—some things cannot be swept under the carpet, and either an editor can eventually give a comprehensible response, or they cannot. Those in the cannot group cause too much disruption—if they can find a way to edit that does not involve disputes with good editors, fine. Otherwise, they have to stop editing Wikipedia as collaboration is an essential requirement. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• I think I've seen enough. This diff as the latest response to this thread is a reasonable final demonstration to me that Enkyo is either unable or unwilling to edit collaboratively. I'd be in favour of an indefinite WP:CIR block but I'm not going to impose one myself as I've obviously been involved here. I'll leave it up to other people to gauge whether/when a consensus has been reached. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Bishonen's, Johnuniq's and Kim's findings above, and I believe there is a consensus for action here. I have therefore indefinitely blocked Enkyo2. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Would it be too late to reconsider an IBAN? I say this because, skirting round, an editor I have great respect for appears to think Enkyo's contributions to wikipedia are of value. Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment here again, but ... I believe Enkyo's contributions are of value. I didn't want him to get indeffed, and would have preferred a stern warning and a promise of sanctions if he continued doing what he had been. But I assume by "IBAN" you mean a mutual IBAN? I know I've been repetitive and annoying in my complaints, but no one here seems to think that I was disruptive or deserve to be punished in some way. And last time I accepted such a solution it didn't work out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to reverse the ban, but let's be very lenient in any appeal he might want to make. Shii (tock) 16:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@Shii: - firstly it's a block not a band; secondly you are WP:INVOLVED, so shouldn't add/remove any restrictions anyways, which is the same reason why Kim or I or anybody else didn't make the block ourselves. GiantSnowman 16:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

By IBAN I meant staying off pages Hijiri works, if he calls for a repeal of the block some months down the track. Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Where to go for assistance

What's the best place to ask for assistance when there is a discussion in which you feel the other party is not behaving appropriately (making false accusations, avoiding directly discussion the topic at hand etc)? I need both an outside third opinion on the topic, and someone to look at the behaviour of the other editor because it's incredibly frustrating to deal with (I suspect they may be stonewalling in the hope that I'll give up and go away). WP:3O isn't an option as there was originally a third party in the conversation (they gave up on talk, but continued reverting) and WP:DRN states that it's not about editor behaviour. Cheers, Number 57 21:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You may want to try WP: RFC as an avenue for dispute resolution. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 02:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tried RFCs before, and unfortunately my experience is that they're worse than useless, mostly because they attract almost no outside input, so it just ends up with the same group of POV pushers from both sides of the debate turning up with the same old arguments and predictable voting patterns. Is there anywhere else? Number 57 10:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Still, an RFC would at least show that you've tried to work the problem through the normal dispute resolution channels. If you try anything more drastic at this point (say, Arbitration), you risk getting it rejected for not having first tried the usual procedures. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've started one here. Outside input would be most appreciated to prevent it descending into the usual farce. However, should my prediction above come to pass, where would I go next? And won't it just lead to accusations of forum shopping? Number 57 16:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's now got to the point where I think I need a venue to raise concerns about editor behaviour - the dispute is a separate issue. Where's the best place for this? Number 57 17:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the nature of the disruptive behaviour. Are they edit warring? If so, you can raise the matter at WP:AN3. If it's a complex case of long-term or multifaceted disruption, you can post here at WP:ANI. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It's more a case of refusing to debate in a constructive manner - making false claims about what has been said by the other party, refusal to acknowledge sources, cherrypicking, smearing the other editor with claims of bias and ulterior motives etc. It's infuriating, and makes it very difficult to discuss civilly. Number 57 17:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a case for Wikiquitte assistiance - oh, wait, we closed that down because we didn't need it, everyone could just use AN/I... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi 57, since this article deals with Israeli-Palestinian topics it is covered under a previous ARBCOM decision WP:ARBPIA. You can request enforcment at WP:AE. It would be helpful if you read through some past cases to get an idea of what a good report looks like. And yeesh, the edit he made to the RFC would be enough for at least a warning at AE in my opinion - I'm not even gonna bother reading the rest because I'm pretty sure I know exactly where it's going. GL N^oformation ^Talk 17:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just wondering what exactly I can request enforcement for? I can't see any specific sanctions that would apply here aside from general disruptiveness. Number 57 19:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC) (replaced by 192.76.82.89 (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

It was immediately obvious to me that the rephrase of your RFC question was overtly non-neutral - demonstrating a pattern of WP:TE would be a good start. N^oformation ^Talk 01:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Noinformation, could you kindly explain why you believe that No57's phrasing of the RFC (supported only by a circular sourcing of a Wikipedia article) is preferable to Nishidani's rephrase supported by a body of cited expert academic literature. Further, given that our WP:NPOV policy tells us to represent what has been published in reliable sources, what is "overtly non-neutral" and tendentious about rephrasing the RFC in line with published academic literature rather than using circular sourcing of Wikipedia articles? Dlv999 (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Seems to be a lot of dancing in terms of whom this report is about. User:Nishidani should have been notified at the outset or close to it. I've done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Number used in his RfC a phrasing which he regards as 'neutral' but which sources of very high quality identify as non-neutral, and I rephrased the question in the light of those 11academic sources, with all of the evidence laid before potential contributors. This was called 'ridiculous', and now my behaviour is complained of. In the context of posting an RfC, to notify this board or any other that one of the two disputants is under report works out, whatever the objective intention, to giving an appearance that one editor, Number, is 'neutral' and the other editor is not. I don't think Number57 meant that. But in this place,that's how it will look, and it has now contaminated the RfC. There is nothing in this, except a deep dislike, and I am not going to waste my time in replying further.Nishidani (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Threat and deleting pictures w/o getting a consensus

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:Werieth has threatened me of seeking a ban topic for myself if I didn't stop reverting his edit.

First of all, I reverted his edit on Desire (Geri Halliwell song) due to removing an image that was under WP:BRD discussion [155] and a consensus about keeping the image or not, wasn't done yet and yet he STILL removed it w/o getting with a final consensus about the image.

Second, this user has been threatening a lot of users.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. 'Consensus' is not necessary to remove non-free content not meeting the criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There's currently an ongoing discussion about keeping the image or not, and according to WP:BRD: "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. When the discussion has achieved mutual understanding, attempt a new edit that will be acceptable to all participants in the discussion". Another user has raised points in keeping the image, so User:Werieth shouldn't remove an image without getting a final consensus.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope. A talk-page consensus cannot overrule Wikipedia policy - and Wikipedia has to take copyright considerations seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As the article is the only fair use rationale for the image, is there a reason it can't just be taken to FFD, and remain in the article until the discussion there resolves? Monty₈₄₅ 04:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I obviously have not seen eye to eye with Werieth in that his reading of WP:NFCC is sometimes not always consistent with other editor's readings or current consensus on certain points and he edit wars to remove images despite discussions on his talk page or articles talk pages. I am glad he is pointing to specific points of WP:NFCC in his edit summaries now since in the past he used edit summaries of "see WP:NFC", which lead to a lot of reversions back and worth, user talk page warnings by Werieth and threats of blocks by Werieth that could have been avoided by using better communication. A lot of editors do not know all of the ins and outs of WP:NFCC and most just need to be told what the rules are and sometimes why they are and the editors understand why the images cannot be used. In this case there are two different readings of WP:NFCC and because Werieth refuses to take images to Wikipedia:Files for deletion when reverted as he has been advised by numerous editors and admins, I started this discussion to try and reach a consensus on the correct reading. He left a message on the talk page and then proceeded to make two more reversions for a total of three reversions less than 24 hours despite being told that these image removals are not exceptions to WP:3RR because they are not unquestionably violations and could result in his being blocked for edit warring. Aspects (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, Hotwiki is really misrepresenting the facts of this case, I threatened a topic ban because this user does not understand policy in regards to non-free media, he has already been taken to ANI where it was proven that his actions went against policy. NFCC is fairly clear about what is and isn't allowed. There is a general consensus that 1 image is allowed for visual identification without critical commentary of the image. Any more images must have reliably sourced critical commentary on the image (Otherwise NFCC#8 isnt met). I also need to laugh since Aspects has been tag teaming with Hotwiki to re-add files and ignore NFCC. Werieth (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• ASpects and Hotwiki need to be careful of tag-teaming each other's reverts, though. This is gaming the system and if repeated on a regular basis is just as likely (indeed, more likely) to lead to a block as exceeding 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• @Werieth: you might like to re-read the advice I gave you here. Stripping images from articles is making people angry, lots of people. Better you should tag the excess images as F7 or list the article at WP:NFCR as having too many images. This gives the uploader plus the wider community a better opportunity to comment and discuss. If there's several people angry at you and complaining, perhaps it's time to re-think the way you are handling these images? -- Diannaa (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• @Werieth:you may have the best intentions in removing non-free content but it is not policy to once more delete images from an article such as EWO Brewery Ltd. after they have been moved from Commons and tagged as "fair use" on English Wikipedia with a valid rationale. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 06:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

  The files may meet fair use criteria, however wikipedia's rules on non-free media WP:NFCC are far more strict. Your usage does not meet those criteria. Werieth (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

So, you deleted the images again. Angry? No. Disappointed? Yes. My intention has always been to build an encyclopedia according to the rules, not chop bits out of it. As per the original comments at Commons before you deleted the EWO Brewery Ltd. images, the copyright owner is impossible to establish based on a Japanese invasion and a Communist revolution. Fair use on en:wiki was suggested by an admin at Commons. By the way, I don't need you to lecture me on Wikipedia's rules.► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 17:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Same problem with the guy. But at least he's motivated me to split the games into separate articles lol. (He's falsely claimed Dragon Knight franchise article is a list article, despite not being in even one "list of" category.) --Niemti (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Werieth has also deleted pictures and repeatedly deleted content that I am trying to bring into line, with no discussion, here: Scandrett Regional Park. E James Bowman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

E James Bowman, I can see nothing whatever wrong in Werieth's removal of off-topic material from the Scandrett Regional Park article - and it is entirely false to say that there has been 'no discussion', as your talk page makes clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yet another case where User:Werieth has been shown to be right. Close thread, move on. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Niemti

Hey, a couple of days ago I encountered this user, and it's been a bit of an unseen battle getting this far.

The article in question is Brandish (game); so far he's reverted some clerical edits I've made--without explanation except taunts--and actually stole some of the changes for his own edit rushes; he's refused to reply after asking him about it on both his talk page and on the article talk page, except for more taunts on the latter; and he's being rude in general, with phrases like "I'm stealing your edits and selling them on black market". I'm afraid to even touch the article anymore, because I know he's going to revert, steal whatever he wants to, and make another rush of edits that go out of their way to not solve certain clerical issues.

While I admit that removing the tags might not have been the best thing to do, I felt that the article didn't need them anymore; he took that as a sign that he should declare ownership against all comers, demand information out of me (that he seems to know more of), and act how I've described. I appreciate that he is adding to the article, but he claims that he only suddenly cared and at my expense. Honestly, it's kinda hard to care about good faith when things like this happen.

Thanks for reading. Despatche (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That's consistent with Niemti's behavior at Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples where he was on the minority side of two separate RfCs and consensus. He exhibited battleground behavior, some not hearing, and was generally not nice to be around. See previous ANI, his blocks-current name, his blocks-old name, RfC/U for past civility issues. GregJackP Boomer! 17:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

as a off topic comment, despite his claims, " I know he's going to ... steal whatever he wants to, "; everything you contribute to Wikipedia you are contributing under a "free use" license and so, he cannot really "steal" anything. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I meant to mention that too, but forgot. GregJackP Boomer! 17:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly guys. We contribute under an "attribution-only" license, not a free license. So it is possible to "steal" in the sense of using material without giving attribution.--v/r - TP 18:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

true, but it seems likely that Niemti is merely being a smart-ass taunting rather than actually utilizing content in an off Wiki site without attribution. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be off-site. Copying another editor's contributions from one page to another without attribution is also disallowed. However, in this case it seems Niemti appears to be reverting Despatche's edits and then readding some of the work later - this is acceptable, as the attribution is in the article history. However, the snarky replies on the talk page by Niemti are completely unnecessary. Dana boomer (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Judging from the recent edit history of Brandish (game), it has been significantly improved, thanks to everyone who contributed. "I'm stealing your edits and selling them on black market" was obviously a joke. Other than that, I do not see any diffs above showing recent and ongoing problems. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Niemeti consistently refuses to leave edit comments or get involved in discussions about his edits. Generally however their edits are useful and helpful edits to have which I suspect is why they are still editing on Wikipedia though they do have a tendency to rub other editors the wrong way. Canterbury Tail talk 01:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

He reverts every edit I make and steals the bits he likes for his own edits, while completely preventing me from editing the page at all, without any explanation for any of it except taunts... that is well beyond "rude", and is unacceptable by any margin. He is so far detached from any code of conduct that, again, I'm legitimately surprised he hasn't been deleted from reality a long time ago (I'm not even attacking the guy with this statement). That he's actually contributing to the article is only making this situation a hundred times worse. Despatche (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Wooooooow, just read all the past history. Simply terrifying stuff, and not just from Niemti here. Despatche (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• I do not have any time to investigate, but simply looking at (edit summary) of your last edit in the article, it seems that ridiculous joke about "stealing" actually comes from you. My very best wishes (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:117Avenue

This editor is engaging in personal attacks [156] [157] and using disruptive editing tactics (multiple reverts [158] [159] [160] [161] and frivolous deletion nominations [162] [163] [164] [165]) in an apparent attempt to control the article Edmonton Light Rail Transit and related pages (Capital Line Template:Capital Line Template:Metro Line Metro Line Valley Line (ETS) Template:Valley Line (ETS) Template:ETS LRT route Template:ETS LRT future).
He has been warned about this kind of activity before [11] (and he doesn't even make accurate accusations: I haven't added any lists or navboxes). Useddenim (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment - FYI, the first diff provided is not a 117Avenue edit. It is an edit made by Secondarywaltz. I see no attack in the second diff. Hwy43 (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Useddenim has made many controversial edits, and hasn't clearly explained his intentions in discussions, and garnered consensus. The second diff Useddenim provided was not intended to be an attack, but a plea to end the template writing, and explain his intentions. This is the first time I have seen him say that he thinks he isn't adding lists or navboxes. In the numerous discussions I have tried to explain what he, and User:Gingeroscar, are doing is duplicating existing content, and creating redundant lists and templates, Useddenim hasn't done much to explain the opposite. Useddenim asked me to review a template he had written, I asked why, and with no explanation after two days, I nominated it for deletion. He responded with a tit-for-tat nomination of the template that has been widely used for years, and said we were having a disagreement, I replied that the solution to an edit war is discussion not forking. Up to a month ago the Edmonton LRT had one template, that worked just fine. The addition of more templates has been called unnecessary multiple times[166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178], and now we have five. I have opened up a discussion on the use of Template:ETS LRT future, Useddenim has yet to explain his intentions[179]. Every edit of Useddenim's I have reverted is accommodated with an explanation. The deletion nominations are not frivolous, I did not see another option (trying to avoid coming here) for Useddenim's edits without consensus. I edited Valley line in accordance with MOS:DAB, and explained this in my edit summaries, and on my talk[180][181], Useddenim has since called it a disruptive editing tactic. I do not own Edmonton Light Rail Transit, User:Thankyoubaby and User:Secondarywaltz have also indicated that it is unnecessary to create more templates or articles, or expand the existing ones with future information. If Useddenim means Valley Line Edmonton LRT with "Valley Line (ETS)", my comments on that deletion can be found here. The conclusion I have come to, about Useddenim, is that he is writing templates, and adding future lines and stations, because he can, but he hasn't taken the time to see is these additions are really needed, or what the regular editors of the related articles thinks about it. 117Avenue (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A couple more comments that I missed. I don't understand the ownership of Template:Valley Line (ETS) accusation, Useddenim is the primary editor of that page. Just because the tools exist doesn't mean we should use them. 117Avenue (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen and the editors that have taken to personal attacks to prove a point

Wow. I am extremely disheartened by what has transpired on wikipedia. Not that I expect any resolution, because having my privileges revoked for confronting irresponsible editing seems to be a systemic problem, but the culture on this site needs to change. I cannot waste my breath any more other than to show you the latest response by Rjensen, who I am reporting for Personal Attacks and using personal opinions about an industry to cloud his dealings with me. You can find the original transcript on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rjensen#Re:_Propaganda Now, Future Perfect at Sunrise has removed this complaint without explaining to me how the issue is to be resolved, or why it was removed. This individual has blocked me before, I should point out.70.73.141.146 (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC) I am now reporting this individual as well, for inappropriate removal of content, and without any effort to try to resolve the conflict. I would love to inform this individual, but their talk page is protected, so I cannot. Something tells me her or she will remove this complaint again, however.70.73.141.146 (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A lack of succinctness. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"I have come on here one more time, peacefully, to try to engage you in meaningful conversation. If you do not respond, this is fine, so please don't consider this an attack on you personally, etc. I need to understand why you think that propaganda can be limited to political and military uses. Propaganda can be used by an industry. When I looked back at your edits, I noted you claimed that my inclusion of the tanning industry and tobacco industry was to garner attention for "a product [I think] is bad for people." Mr. Jensen, I do not have to think anything, as this is not an assertion, it is a fact. When an industry pays other organizations to publish material that is misleading and untruthful to serve their purpose, is this not propaganda? If you can provide further resources to help me understand what propaganda is, then I will be happy to read them, and then maybe I can see why you refuse to include the propaganda imposed by the tanning industry. If you cannot, then I fear that the individual entrusted with "safeguarding" the integrity of such an important page has not done their due dilligence before dismissing the careful work of others. This is all I ask, and I believe it is reasonable for me to do so, considering the fact that you took this to the point of banning me from contributing to wikipedia.70.73.141.146 (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC) you don't understand propaganda. You use the word to denounce advertising for products you consider harmful. You should read up on "propaganda" for its many meaning s and uses. I think your efforts at Wikipedia are in fact propaganda, an irony you need to appreciate. Rjensen (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC) ...."::you don't understand propaganda." That is a loaded statement if I ever read one. I have read up on the term propaganda... and my readings are not simply limited to this website, which I feel is narrow in its scope. I have been on a program that toured the death camps of Poland and studied the use of propaganda in Nazi Germany. I am currently awaiting a response from a PhD who has lectured and studied the use of propraganda in the media/industry, and it is with respect to our point of contention here... I have made an attempt to engage in meaningful dialogue, and you response above clearly shows you cannot or will not make an effort to present factual arguments to prove such a comment. "You use the word to denounce advertising for products you consider harmful." I am not denouncing advertising for products I consider harmful, and this is what you need to understand, because I have stated this on multiple occasions in many different ways. This statement you have just made is a personal attack. Additionally, it is incorrect. I don't consider the product to be harmful. It is harmful. This is not an opinion, but a restating of facts by the IARC/WHO, and health organizations worldwide, based on the overwhelming body of evidence that is available. If it were simply an opinion, I can understand why you could be frustrated. But the irony, Mr. Jensen, is that the fact that you and others believe that this is simply an opinion is possibly the result of hearing or reading propaganda used by those in the tanning industry to cloud the picture. Tanning bed exposure is strongly associated with skin cancer, among other health risks (please take the time, I urge you, to read any or all of the references I quoted in my submission, all from established medical journals). The industry claims that these risks are not existent or are insignificant, says that UV exposure is more controlled in a tanning bed (not proven whatsoever), and claims health benefits of tanning bed use that are either unproven (e.g. cancer prevention, "base tan"), exaggerated, and can be achieved through safer means (e.g. Vitamin D exposure). So please enlighten me, Mr Jensen, as to what propaganda is? Is propaganda not "a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument?". That's the definition on the wiki page, right? I am sure you have head of a systematic review - that is when an established researcher evaluates all of the evidence for and against an exposure, and concludes if the body of evidence favours a hypothesis. It is the most balanced and unbiased way to assess an intervention or exposure. Well, that's what I use, and that's what the World Health Organization used, when they came to an unbiased conclusion that UV exposure from tanning beds (as well as the sun) is a carcinogen, in the same class as cigarettes. In my submission, I think I clearly showed that there are many in the tanning industry and their associated organizations who have reported only the small studies that show their point of view, but neglect to mention the overwhelming amount of evidence that goes against their points, including the systematic reviews I mention. Is this not the same as "presenting one side of an argument" to "influence the attitude of the community"? Or, is it that, as you say, I just "don't understand propaganda"? I have to say it yet again to you, because I think this is such an important point that I have to drive home - this is not my "opinion". 1) Tanning beds cause more harm than good, fact. 2) Tanning industry sites present the good (which is partly true) and negate the bad (partly false), and this is also a fact. If you can find me a tanning industry association that clearly presents a balanced view, you show it to me because this would run counter to the principle of "good business" - its impossible for an industry that causes harm to remove a conflict of interest when weighing evidence for or against their product, and the result is advertising that is propaganda. 3) The industry has used scapegoats/diversion tactics (e.g. suggesting that Cancer Society and Neutrogena are connected in an elaborate scheme to sell skin products through fear mongering, stating that the government is taking responsibility away from parents to make decisions on behalf of their children, blaming other tanning salons for unregulated exposure, etc.). If you put 1+2+3 together, I honestly don't know how you can tell me that me stating that this is propaganda is anything other than a fact. "I think your efforts at Wikipedia are in fact propaganda, an irony you need to appreciate." This is an easily reportable personal attack. I am an MD and a FRCPC, and I have no interest in engaging in my own propraganda. This would be against an ethical code that we as physicians subscribe to, and the suggestion that I am compromising such a code is both laughable and troubling to see by an editor of this site. Personally (please don't mistake this for propaganda), I don't think you should be editing this page any more if you are going to be resorting to personal attacks, rather than facts, to prove your case. Thank you for providing me with evidence to support my own case. You can try and continue the same tact you have employed, and you have every right to be mad at me for earlier aggressive tactics that I have used, but I would have expected more from you after you reported me for similar behaviour. Just because you have power to remove my posts does not make you correct, and I have still yet to hear a shred of evidence from you that refutes any of my original points. I hope that you try, and then we can engage in thoughtful dialogue rather than veiled attempts at name calling. 70.73.141.146 (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC Below is my submission to the propaganda page. It was done as an attempt to engage others in understanding the scope of propaganda, which can extend beyond its use by governments in times of war, as well as Mexican drug cartels. Other industries have been involved in propaganda, and I included the reference to tobacco industry in times past as another illustration. I invite anyone here to check the facts behind my submission, challenge my points, and claim that what I am doing is "propaganda," I would hope, using the definition of the page that is so carefully edited. If one can successfully prove that I have engaged in propaganda with this submission below, then fine. But I don't think you would find a health organization, government minister, or medical doctor who would agree with you. If you cannot, then the only conclusion one can draw from Rjensen's comments is that he has engaged in an unwanted personal attack on me, and should be held accountable. Thank you for your consideration 70.73.141.146 (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Tanning Industry "In 2009, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) elevated use of ultraviolet radiation (UVR)-emitting tanning beds to the highest cancer risk category, labeling them 'carcinogenic to humans'. Tanning beds are thus "one of the few industries whose product, if used as the manufacturer intends, puts the user at risk of harm. Another industry in which this is the case is the tobacco industry."[74] Propaganda by the tanning industry has been achieved through: 1) Support for "third-party advocacy groups and lobbyists to advance their interests" by establishment and support for advocacy groups, including the Indoor Tanning Association, Tanning Truth, the Ultraviolet Foundation, and the Vitamin D Council, 2) use of advertising strategies, "designed to counteract health concerns associated with their services and appeal to a sense of social popularity and acceptance... using idealized depictions of users and celebrity endorsements," and 3) "targeting young people by appealing to image-based social norms and by cost-reduction promotional strategies that may be particularly appealing to young people such as 'discount deals for multiple tanning sessions'"[75]. 4) Attempts to "repeatedly ...discredit the medical research linking indoor tanning to cancer, even distributing propaganda purporting health benefits, including the prevention of lung, kidney, and liver cancers through use of UV devices." [76] Tanning propaganda has been reported [77] Using Canada as an example, 1) Third-party advocacy group is the Joint Canadian Tanning Association (JCTA), led by Steven Gilroy (Executive Director) and Doug McNabb (President), the latter of whom was the Former President of Fabu Tan. 2) Through its website tancanada.org/ and use of social media, its advertising strategies include the mitigation of the risks of UV radiation, at times using biased presentation of articles in their favour but in direct contradiction to the IARC decision after objectively reviewing all evidence. [78] 3) Comments by its president have included: #Biebs seen at tanning salon in Paris! Not sure - spray/UV tan, he's looking great either way!" (https://twitter.com/DougMcNabb). 4) The president has also falsely asserted that "the real risk" from UV radiation "is from tanning equipment used in doctors offices and home units," [79], and his insinuations such as "Neutrogena sunscreen donates $200,000 to Canadian #Cancer Society. CCS then says wear sunscreen. Convenient partners?" [80] serve to discredit the medical community and sunwithout evidence. According to the Canadian Pediatric Society, "the industry's marketing and lobbying practices have served to obscure or even deny the hazards and potential carcinogenicity of tanning beds." [81] Industry efforts to frame artificial UVR as a product associated with health and fitness have been successfully challenged. "In Canada, industry representations generated a complaint by the Canadian Cancer Society to the Competition Bureau in 2005. The subsequent consent agreement with the largest chain of tanning salons in the country stipulated that they must: 'stop making representations to the public linking indoor tanning with the unproven benefits of vitamin D'; 'acknowledge in any promotion of artificial UVR that: “Tanning is not required to generate vitamin D. Vitamin D levels in the body may be maintained by oral supplements without tanning”'; and 'pay an administrative monetary penalty of $62,500.'"[82] As per an ASDA position statement, industry distribution of "propaganda purporting health benefits... through use of UV devices... is based on junk science at best and willful misrepresentation at worst." [83] In 2010, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) found that "such claims constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and that the making of false advertisements, in or affecting commerce is in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act."[84] Recognition of tanning industry propaganda has been explicitly referred to in popular magazines [85], as well as by members of the medical community in Canada [86] and the United States, [87], among others.

(Non-administrator comment) The complainant IP wants to push a POV about tanning on the Propaganda article without regard to WP:UNDUE (as his/her comments above indicate). I've watched User:Rjensen try to politely answer and explain to the greatest degree anyone could. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, gosh. I don't stop by here often anymore now that the Obama trolling has died down, but at the risk of being a procedure fascist, please think of AN/I as an Elevator pitch. If you can't make your point in about 100 words, either you are being so indirect and verbose that nobody will pay attention, or you have no point to make. If some editor is such a problem that they need the administrators to intervene, then you can communicate that succinctly, and provide the rest if necessary as backup. I've been there many times over the years, people who are such offensive, vituperative, hateful, and deranged editors that they really ought to be banned from Wikipedia with a no-return-for-life add-on. But we're all busy here, and volunteers, you need to communicate that quickly so that someone other than yourself cares, and doesn't immediately assume that this is some unimportant personal quarrel. HTH - Wikidemon (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC}

Thank you for the "succinctly", Wikidemon. Tiderolls 08:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the same editor, on a stable IP, who stirred the pot on this in June. It should be noted that FPaS has removed nothing from Rjensen's talk page; the IP just posted the same things they cut-and-pasted from Rjensen's talk page on Rjensen's talk page without giving them a chance to reply, and the comment that they're decrying as a "personal attack" and "bad behavior" is this one which is just as far from either as the Care Bears are from the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. This is a WP:POV-pushing editor who is WP:NOTHERE, and who needs to be blocked, again, just as they were the last time this came up, before they waste any more of the community's time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have blocked for 3 months. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. This person has been bugging the Propaganda page and Rjensen for too long, all for the purpose of inserting an original research/coatrack diatribe against tanning salons and skin cancer. Binksternet (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Their contributions to other pages, like Tanning bed, should probably be picked through too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Texas1966 and User:I.wont.stop66 on Cinco Ranch High School

The above user (I.wont.stop is so obviously a sock that I am not even going to dignify it by using a plural) keeps reverting a cleanup I did at the above article. I removed a bunch of fairly typical WP:SCHOOLCRUFT. Texas reverted it twice, here and here. I reinstated it both times, with an invitation to the talk page in the edit summary, and the mild twinkle edit war warning the first time and the severe one the second time. I also added a note pleading with him to come to the talk page the second time, here. His response was to create the I.wont.stop66 account and revert it yet again here.

The only edits either account has made are to the above article. The first two edits texas made were addition of more schoolcruft. The rest have been this edit war, with 0 participation in discussion anywhere. I am asking for a block on both accounts (and hopefully a hardblock of the IP if possible) per WP:NOTHERE and WP:SOCK, and for some protection on the page if a hard block is not possible. I will notify both personas as soon as I post this. I have not reverted back to the cleaned up version, as I do not want to get even close to 3RR. I came here rather than the 3RR noticeboard due to the addition of socking to the mix. Thanks. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I.wont.stop66 blocked as an obvious sock, the other account left alone for now in case some belated contrition sets in. They've fallen into an autoblock, so both accounts and the IP are out of commission for now. Acroterion (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow. That was quick. Thanks. Another editor restored the cleaned up version. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting IP addresses edit warring to delete reliable source and calling me a Satanist

I have to admit, it is kind of funny but still technically disruptive. I'll try to keep this brief.
Edit warring at Sunni Islam:

• Special:Contributions/31.55.70.24 deletes a reliable source at 04:34, 12 September 2013
• I reverted him at 07:05, 12 September 2013
• Special:Contributions/109.144.134.141 deletes the same source at 09:33, 12 September 2013

Edit warring at Template:Sunni Islam:

• 31.55.70.24 deletes info relating to the reliable source at the Sunni Islam article at 04:34, 12 September 2013
• I reverted him at 07:04, 12 September 2013
• Same IP reverts and deletes the info again at 09:35, 12 September 2013
• Gets reverted by User:Wiqi55 at 11:00, 12 September 2013

Edit warring at Madhhab:

• 31.55.70.24 deletes reliably sourced info at 04:34, 12 September 2013
• Gets reverted by User:Faizhaider at 05:36, 12 September 2013
• 109.144.134.141 deletes the same info at 09:25, 12 September 2013

Personal attacks at Talk:Sunni Islam:

• 31.55.70.24 accuses me of preying on the "gullible majority" who trust "Sheikh Wikipedia" at 04:51, 12 September 2013
• I advise him to review WP:IRS at 07:07, 12 September 2013
• 109.144.134.141 calls me a Inverted Black Magic Pentagram "Muslim" (quotation marks his) at 09:40, 12 September 2013. Gotta admit it's kind of funny but still technically a personal attack. Also, he accused me of suckpuppeting though he doesn't specify whether he thinks my sockpuppet is Faizhaider or Wiqi55.

Let it also be noted that I tried to reason with 31.55.70.24 about the RS guideline at their talk page at User talk:31.55.70.24 at 07:07, 12 September 2013. The guy is clearly on a POV pushing roll and doesn't seem willing to listen to any contrary opinions. I tried on two talk pages and to no avail, and Wiqi55 and Faizhaider's efforts are similarly failing to get through to this individual (and it's clearly either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet), plus it includes several issues (edit warring, personal attacks) so I thought it would technically be more appropriate for immediate attention here than the edit warring noticeboard. I don't know how IP addresses are dealt with in these cases but merely protecting the articles in question may not be enough, a user like this is liable to run amock on other articles as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not know it was a Satanic symbol. Thank you for teaching me about the meaning of the symbol MezzoMezzo, but as you are a Muzlim who knows such things I do not understand why you keep the symbol on your wall? Concerning your fringe POV bias on the Zahiri school of Fiqh (the school of all the most extreme Islamic terrorist organizations). You can not expect the 2 billion Muslims who know better to suddenly accept it as true just because you make Wikipedia say this? You should be more concerned about the integrity of this encyclopaedia. Shame on you. And shame on you for presenting a screwed up chronology of events. Hopefully someone else will also look into 31.55.70.24's edit histories and not just trust your word. Peace. 109.144.134.141 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

An consequential observation for the puzzled. I suspect that the "Inverted Black Magic Pentagram" referred to is this one, which appears on MezzoMezzo's user page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. The IP's kinda got a point: why DO we use an inverted star for that? --erachima talk 20:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

because we are Inverted Black Magic Pentagram "Muslim"s? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably for the same reasons the Medal of Honor does? (Also it should be noted that inverted star =/= inverted pentagram any more than upright star = normal pentagram) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly because the Medal of Honor was created by the secret Baphomet-worshiping NWO.--erachima talk 23:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I would point (ha!) out that what is being called here an "inverted star", could just as easily be interpreted as a star rotated around its centerpoint by 36 degrees left or right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the guy edited his own comment at that talk page to move the quotation marks from around the world Muslim (thus questioning whether I really am Muslim or a secret Satanist) to around Black Magic, which ostensibly would be less offensive? Anyway, he seems to have calmed down though his above ranting about two billion Muslims and knowing better and me supposedly skewing the time stamps is still worrying. I've never had problems with IP addresses like this before. What happens next? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe next you turn him into a newt, and he gets better? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat

User:Yatrides has made a legal threat here [182] Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I see some things that I guess could be legal threats in there, but could also be read other ways, its not proper English, which makes it harder to judge. Monty₈₄₅ 00:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure "No response from you within eight (8) days (deadline September 21, 2013), I will act in any legal normality," is a legal threat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm certain policy says "should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved" and the top o' this page says to discuss things with the editor before opening ANI threads. 01:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the subject of the article, a newbie in Wikipedia rules is trying to remove inaccuracies from his own article. He seems to indeed making legal threats but probably because of his ignorance of wiki rules rather than evil intentions. It looks like a case for WP:DOLT. Please check the references he provided and update the article or explain to User:Yatrides why his proposals are unacceptable. I will write him a warning about WP:NLT Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have written the warning to User_talk:Yatrides#Legal_threat, hope it helps. Meanwhile please review the latest reverted edit by Yatrides and check what of this can be returned back to the article based on the sources he provided on the talk page Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought it might be a WP:DOLT case, which is why I didn't drop a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Their links indicate that they're a native french speaker. It would be worth dropping a line to the France wiki project for some help, or perhaps a multilingual admin? Blackmane (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

User: Werieth and his bullying reverts.

Ever since I got on Wikipedia, User:Werieth has been a constant source of trouble for me. He goes around passing judgements on Wikipedia:Non-free content and removes images without any warning, (talk-page) consensus and even pointing out any specific violation of the Wikipedia:NFCC#Policy guidelines.

As one example, he removed File: Akhtar Hameed Khan.jpg and File:Abdus salam.gif from the page Pakistani people. These images were being used as Visual Depiction of deceased personalities in an image array on page Pakistani people. In these 10 Wikipedia:NFCC#Policy guidelines, there is no guideline that prohibits the use of a WP:NFC file on more than one places on English Wikipedia.

Such self-designated policemen of Wikipedia only scare the newcomers off with their edits. I would like to see a senior editor/administrator stepping in and resolving this particular case, and also take action against User:Werieth for constant violations of Wikipedia:BRD. Thanks. --Fasi100 (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a textbook violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3. Usage of these files are limited to the article about the individual. Werieth (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Again Werieth? You trouble-maker you. I've had my own personal dealings with Werieth and can assure you Fasi100 that if you assumed a little good faith, you would find that there is no personal opinion being had at the hand of Werieth. He uses WP:AWB for most of his WP:NFCC cleanup. My understanding of it is, although you are correct that it is not limited to one article per image, each article must have a valid claim of fair use on the file description page. It doesn't appear that the files you have listed here comply with that requirement. Technical 13 (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Werieth on which criteria is in violation. I think #1 and #8 are violated. Fasi100, you're not being targeted. It's that you lack a good understanding of WP:NFCC and Werieth hasn't bothered to educate you. Non-free images can only be used in the articles specifically about the subject depicted in the image and no free equivalent is available. Basically this: You added these images to articles about Pakistani people. However, in the subject of Pakistani people, there are free images available or that can be produced without using non-free images. That's why we cannot use the non-free images on those articles.--v/r - TP 18:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From what I'm gathering from all of these complaints popping up, is that Werieth could probably use a little more tact/patience/detail when explaining this to people though. Regardless of whether he's right or wrong in his interpretation of the concept itself, its pretty obviously he's not communicating well with others. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sergecross73, I am trying to communicate it but if you take a look at the cases you will see that users have a tendency to not listen. I explain the issue to anyone who has a question, however most users refuse to listen, dont explain themselves and try to ignore a policy that they dont understand. Werieth (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@T13 (edit conflict)Nevertheless, Werieth does seem to upset an awful lot of people, T13. I've also seen respected editors give him very good advice on how he might temper his approach to do that less. The alpha and the omega of it seems to be that he rubs people up the wrong way by assuming a condescending attitude, and removing files repeatedly rather than discussing. If you start from the position that you may not always be correct, you're less likely to rub people up the wrong way like this. Plenty of people involved in NFCC enforcement or interested in copyright issues don't end up dragged here every other day. Eventually someone may begin to think there's no smoke without fire. It's a dirty job, but there are, and have been suggested, less confrontational and bot-like ways of doing it. We've seen all this before, before, I think, you were around, with other users, and it seldom ends well. Just saying. Begoon ^talk 18:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@Begoon I doubt there are that many people actually doing NFCC on a large scale, most of the users who have done this have been insulted and attacked to the point where they just say NFCC isnt work the headache to enforce. Werieth (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps we need more people doing it on a small to medium scale, like I do, and less robots. I do my bit - check my contribs - here and at Commons - though I'd only address a few images a day on average, because I'm not chasing some dream of cleaning it all up in a couple of months - but I don't find the world at my throat every day. You tend to alienate people, like me, who could be on your side, with your sub-par approach to people. Sorry, but it's true. Less robotic, more interpersonal, and you'll achieve more, in my opinion. But different strokes, I guess. You like the 2 edits a minute and sod the consequences approach. I don't - I've seen where it ends - and I suspect you have too. Don't take any of this personally - it's not meant that way. Just voicing my thoughts. Begoon ^talk 18:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue is getting people involved in NFC enforcement is extremely difficult, yes you review your own actions, but there are a lot of users who dont. I have been focused on the bigger cases and thats still a handful. If there was a way we could get more users involved Im all for that, however I doubt you will see much traction for that project. Werieth (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a culture thing. You lead by example. If people see respected users who help them doing the right thing, many of them will try to emulate that - especially if they respect and understand why. It takes time, and it builds slowly. You can't do it with xls files, AWB and bots, or by being seen as the bad cop who nobody wants to emulate. You do it by getting amongst your colleagues and yes, the newbies too, and showing them that acting responsibly can be rewarding. Too slow for some tastes - too slow for yours, probably, but I'd rather still be here chipping away and doing my bit than encouraging the culture divide I abhor and reinforcing the us vs them crap.

You start by getting people to actually look at the images they come across every day. I'm involved with the graphics lab, and I've helped a few users there realise that copyright etc. is ok to do, and look at. I have to say this, though, if you really want to recruit people, that's a fruitful area and you've not done real well there on a couple of occasions. Those are the knowledgeable guys who could help. But knowledgeable guys don't like having the odds shouted at them. They've seen it all before too.

The cleanest towns I've seen (apart from Singapore - notable exception), didn't do it by having litter police - they did it by making the inhabitants ashamed to drop litter because they were letting their townsfolk down, and their friends would "tut" at them. Culture thing. Begoon ^talk 18:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I only use AWB for NFCC#9 sweeps. If you have ideas how to get people to change their behavior I am willing to listen. However Most of the time ideas are great, but just dont pan out when implemented. Werieth (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm happy to chat sometime soon - bit late here now. Thanks for listening to all that so reasonably. I went on a bit. I do that. Begoon ^talk 19:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't the justification for having the photo-box argue in favor of the including of the non-free content? In the context of an article on Pakistani people the presence of a photo-box containing images of exceptionally accomplished Pakistani people significantly increases the reader's understanding of the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really. A link to the article on the individual could do the same thing. In a table of 16 images why do you need two non-free files? how is not including those two files detrimental to understanding the subject of Pakistani people and why cant you just substitute two other images that are free into that collage? Werieth (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of free images available to suit the purpose of illustrating Pakistani people, as evidenced by the ones already there. Any nonfree would violate NFCC#1 (and likely NFCC#8), so they would be disallowed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I can see why Werieth comes off often with a slightly defensive tone. The number of complaints based on confusion and a lack of understanding of the laws that have been filtered through his talk page would make anyone defensive in my opinion. Heck, I believe my first interaction with him were along the lines of "WTF are you doing????" You should read some of the stuff that has gone across his talk page, it is quite comical from my perspective. What I'm wondering is why Fasi100 felt it was okay to start this thread and fail to notify Werieth of it. Technical 13 (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Its an attempt to get me blocked by someone who has almost no understanding of WP:NFCC, and doesnt care to learn about it. Werieth (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about "bullying" but I think there is highhandedness in quoting policies such as we are discussing. At least three sections of policy are invoked in this thread: WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8. Some of those sections of policy are anything but clearcut. They require a dollop of interpretation. This in turn can require a lengthier discussion than the simple citing of policy numbers. Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And if you check the article talk page or mine there isnt a single question about it except for the post here. I would have explained in detail if clarification was requested. Werieth (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

TParis says "Non-free images can only be used in the articles specifically about the subject depicted in the image…"[183] Where is that found in policy? Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That has resulted from multiple discussions, spanning FFD, NFCR, and WT:NFC. Which has come to the general rule (note I said general as there are a few exceptions) that such usage violates NFCC#3 and 8 in almost every case (and often #1 as it is displayed in another article). Can you please explain how not having File: Akhtar Hameed Khan.jpg in the infobox is detrimental to the understanding of the article? Especially when all you need to do to see that picture is click one link? Werieth (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFC#UUI point 6, is one reference to this too. Werieth (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The frustrating thing about all of this is that you can't state in unambiguous terms that policy says something unless policy actually says that. I think the reality is that you, or in this case TParis, are engaging in interpretation. Policy language is perfectly capable of articulating the thought that "Non-free images can only be used in the articles specifically about the subject depicted in the image". If as you say, "there are a few exceptions" then language in policy can allude to and allow for exceptions under a limited number of circumstances. The policy language is not up to par. Bus stop (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It results from WP:NFCC#3 minimal usage. WP:NFC isnt policy but rather an explanation of WP:NFCC which's wording isnt exact, because of how non-free media is used. Werieth (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

PS with art work there are cases where it can be used in other articles. However in this case it fails #8, 3 & 1. Getting a one size fits all exact wording is almost impossible, due to unforeseen edge cases. Werieth (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You say "That has resulted from multiple discussions, spanning FFD, NFCR, and WT:NFC." The results of "multiple discussions" are not available to the average editor. Bus stop (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I see only one edit by Werieth to Pakistani people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where the use of the non-free images was clearly in violation of policy: there existed neither discussion of the images, nor non-free use rationales for their inclusion in that article. This example shows correct enforcement of Wikipedia policy, and does not justify a block. Disputes about non-free content are best taken to Wikipedia:Non-free content review. —rybec 00:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that Werieth should be blocked. Bus stop (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think anyone's really pushing for a block. But there's quite a few people who share the same sentiments here that Werieth should take into consideration. The way you personally explain the policy, and deal with others, could use some "softening". You need to be less brisk and agitated that not everyone is as invested or understanding as you are. Well, you don't need to, but rather, if you don't change, you're just going to keep finding yourself wasting time arguing on talk pages and ANI time and time again, which, from what I've gathered from watching others, typically leads to burnout due to frustration, or blocks due to escalation in the arguing. No Admin action warranted here, just Werieth needing to reflect how he wants to spend his time here... Sergecross73 msg me 02:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop: NFCC #1 is clear "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Pakistani People is so broad that it's just not an argument that a non-free image isn't replaceable. I'm sorry, but there is nothing ambiguous about that. The subject of the article "Pakistani People" is what we judge NFCC off of when determining which images cannot be used. Just because a non-free image can be hosted on Wikipedia and used in 1 article does not give us free range to use it in all articles. Each use has to be evaluated on it's own. It's use in Pakistani People does not pass criteria #1 or #8. Sorry, but that's inarguable.--v/r - TP 13:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

TParis—your statement was "Non-free images can only be used in the articles specifically about the subject depicted in the image and no free equivalent is available"[184]. The statement in policy is "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."[185] These are not identical statements. Bus stop (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• The last time I commented about this editor I said I was pretty sure the community had to deal with him again, so I am not surprised at all to see two complaints about Werieth's conduct on this page. At the time of my dispute, specific cases aside, he was strongly suggested to change his behaviour by a number of experienced editors including three different administrators (Dianaa, Kww and Masem) but here we go again. I cuncur (once again) to the above suggestions to Wer. for changing his conduct, but while I usually hope for the best, unless things change, it is just a question of time that this editor will be topic banned/blocked or something similar (even if surely not for the current case here). Cavarrone 08:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Werieth has also been edit warring over the use of File:Royal Aus Regt.JPG. This was judged to not be usable in many articles as a result of a discussion he or she both started and closed at Wikipedia:NFCR (which is a dubious practice by itself), but this wasn't widely advertised. Their original removal edit summaries didn't link to the discussion and simply stated "Commenting out use(s) of file "File:Royal Aus Regt.JPG": Per WP:NFCR" (examples, [186], [187]). When Anotherclown (talk · contribs) reverted this on the not-unreasonable grounds that such generically-worded changes were unclear Werieth reverted them again with the equally unhelpful edit summary of "Commenting out use(s) of file "File:Royal Aus Regt.JPG": per NFCR closure, these uses do not meet NFCC " (examples [188], [189]). Instead of attempting to explain the situation to Anotherclown (who is an editor in excellent standing) Werieth simply hit them with a generic and not entirely relevant warning template [190]. I don't know whether this was calculated rudeness or not, but this kind of rude conduct is entirely unhelpful. A polite note to Anotherclown would have worked wonders here, but Werieth basically dragged out and escalated the situation through a lack of communication. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• These kind of threads are a big reason why I gave up on NFCC enforcement. People who enforce NFCC are routinely abused, harassed, insulted, taken to various noticeboards, reverted, and otherwise generally bullied and abused. Fasi, you are utterly, completely wrong about the example you noted. You can not use non-free images in that infobox when there are plenty of free images of Pakistani people. Your failure to understand WP:NFCC does not constitute a reason to complain about someone who does understand that policy. For all your talk of Werieth being a "constant source of trouble for [you]", I see only one exchange between you and he on his talk page, back in early August, and just three notices from him on your talk page about orphaned non-free images. Constant? Hardly. As others have mentioned, you were also out of line for failing to inform Werieth of this thread, despite big red letters on the top of this page telling you to do so, despite a big orange edit notice at the top of the edit window when you added this thread here. Why did you ignore those? There is nothing for administrators to do here, Recommend closure of the thread, and a trout slap to Fasi100 to pay attention to WP:NFCC from this point forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Amen and seconded! Technical 13 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    • All of these images (there are 135 of them) where Werieth commented out uses of non-free images have to be reverted. Otherwise we will end up hosting non-free images that are not actually used in any articles, and there will be no way to locate them, as the file link will not disappear. I am going to use rollback to revert his edits -- Diannaa (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Dianaa, I was under the impression, having seen it in action a few times, that there was a bot patrolling recent edits that detected and tagged for deletion those non-free images that were orphaned. Has this changed? — Huntster (t @ c) 05:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Actually I was just checking this further and discovered that commenting out the image does remove the file link from the page, so rolling back these edits won't be necessary after all. For example, he commented out File:OJHL Logo.jpg from four articles, and the image is only showing one file link now. So whew, that part seems okay. Not sure if a bot tags orphaned images - I think lately Werieth has been tagging them manually - he has 1,597 edits to files so far this month. There's a daily database report of orphaned non-free files at Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused non-free files. -- Diannaa (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
      • What? Do I have this right? You were suggesting reverting all the commenting out so that these images will no longer be orphaned, but they will be used improperly due to the reversions you were suggesting? That doesn't make sense as at all. An orphaned non-free image is far better than a non-free image used improperly in an article. It is also a LOT easier to find. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
        • It was late at night (1 am), and I was tired and made a mistake. I somehow got it into my head that if the images were commented out that the file link was not removed. My concern was that images that did not actually appear in articles would not show up as orphaned the way they are supposed to do. This is not the case; if an image is commented out the file link no longer is active for that particular article. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Sorry if this doesn't make much sense; perhaps it's the kind of thing that only makes sense at 1 am. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
          • No worries :) Happens to all of us! Thanks for clarifying. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 and WP:Involved

I've had concerns regarding User:Bbb23 and his handling of the MRM probation for some time. Recently, it appears to me that the user has stepped over the line from admin to editor in this area.

Please see this exchange for some background.

Summary:

User:Bbb23 Semi-protected an article with the reasoning of "Persistent sock puppetry: MRM probation sanctions".

This article has had 3 different IP's edit it in the last month. They don't appear to be inserting the same information, and the last edit before the protection was to add some additional ref's. None of these IP's are marked as sockpuppets, nor do they appear to be.

After protecting the article, Bbb23 reverted the edit of the last IP, citing the MRM sanctions.

When asked to provide the rationale for the revert. Bbb23 responded that his edit summary provided the rationale. When asked how the edit violated the probation, Bbb23 reponded thusly. I commented that this action does not appear to be an adminstrative one, but a content/editorial one, and asked that he self revert or consider himself WP:Involved in the area. He has yet to respond to this, though he has been editing actively since.

When discussing his involvement in this area on their talk page, they state "This is one of the few areas where I sanction editors based on content as much as conduct" which to me, is troubling.

What I'd like to see here, is the community opinion on if Bbb23 should be performing admin actions in an area where he is making editorial decisions. And if the community feels that he is not involved, do they feel this rationale provided for the protection and revert are sufficient (or accurate). Arkon (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he should continue to patrol. Perhaps you haven't heard of WP:RBI? Reverting blocked editors after protecting an article is a perfectly legitimate admin action.--v/r - TP 19:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't block the IP, but the spirit behind the principle is the same. As I recall (Wikipedia is having technical issues so it's hard for me to confirm), there was one individual disruptively editing from different IP addresses, so to block the individual would have been difficult. In effect, semi-protection "blocked" them.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What can I say... This combination of admin and non-adming actions looks just as self-righteous as when you were reverting User:Jimbo Wales for "BLP violations" on that guru talk page. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think you need to look a little bit more deeply into this. Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, the only admin action I'm considering is blocking the multiple editors that are attempting to bully User:Bbb23 off this article area. All of you (the others I'm sure I don't need to name, but you know who you are, and some of those have previous for the same issues in other areas) are displaying behaviour that is not acceptable in any scenario, especially that of a collaborative encyclopedia. Please stop it - now. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Black Kite. The courage to call it. Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet - good call by Black Kite. GregJackP Boomer! 00:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary was inadequate, the explanation on the talk page sufficient. NE Ent 00:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• I would also note that the terms of the article probation are explicit about what constitutes involvement: For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Even if one were to admit for the sake of argument that WP:Involved was violated (and I'm not saying it was), the community imposed sanction supersedes it, and there is no way Bbb23 violated the article probation standard for being considered involved. Monty₈₄₅ 00:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is very clearly covered by the probation. Further it's not the first time Arkon's thrown 'round accusations of involved with sysops in this area: see his interaction with KC claiming she was "involved" in this thread--Cailil ^talk 12:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

User Jeff Rudd and the Direct Democracy Ireland, COI and off-Wiki accusations

Jeff Rudd has a conflict of interest on the Direct Democracy Ireland article, he is the current chairman of Louth Direct Democracy Ireland, and has tried to edit it to remove cited material. This has been re-added, with numerous cites. His COI has been brought to the relevant notice board. However he has previously, unconnectedly, recieved a threat. He has added to the DDI talkpage that "I wish Wikipedia to notify the Irish Gardi and Interpol as to the events that has occurred here and what might be connected to my sudden death or any injury that might fall upon me". And he has added infomation naming one of the other editors on the DDI page to [ his personal website]. This is not assuming good faith, not following dispute resolutions and a possible case of trying to for meat puppetry, not to mention intimadating any editors espieacally the one named, with police mentioned. I have edited the aricle but only manual of style edits. Murry1975 (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

---

I, Jeff Rudd have not continued to edit the page of which there is a conflict. I have not done so for a number of days now. That said, I have repeatedly requested the removal of UNPROVED allegations - the cited material that is allegations, NOT PROOF - that even now persist on a page that describes my national organisation. Anything I have stated in on record and I stand by it. I'm up for public election soon and if you take this into account, you might see that any sensible person is not willing to post anything 'daft' for want of a better description, in that light.

I have pointed out on more than one occasion with detail why a current Dublin based editor to the organisation page that I represent - has conflicting interests. I have even detailed where he has lied and a Wikipedia admin has also backed this by by stating that I have been active only for "days" not "weeks" as lied by another. Namely this same person is additionally a supporter of an organisation and ideology that opposes mine and others - who's pages he also alters. He has openly stated that he is of an element that opposes other political directions offered in Ireland.

As such,as the Wiki rules stand still, any competitors should NOT be editing that of those that are opposite them or oppose them. One continues do do this however and is still getting away with it.

I have from the very outset, made clear who I am, what I am connected to and I have nothing to hide. I have been from the outset, upfront and honest. I use my real name and still stand for honestly and transparency. It is the very cornerstone of my organisation. No if's or buts. I have no problem taking this matter to the media where I will there too stand on record and state the very same things I have here.

It is unfortunate that I have indeed received threats. I have stated this while remaining silent about who is responsible but as a precaution have informed others at home. Given the historic nature/actions (easily googled) of those that oppose my organisation and others that are only peaceful in intention, the threat upon my life is very real and not to be taken lightly. Its not a light matter, nor a joking matter, nor do I post for "meat puppetry" - the threats are very real and my family and I do not take them lightly at all - nor do others close to home. Researching the background of recent "republican history in Ireland" it can be discovered that these threats are very real and sadly on many occasions, have been carried out to full extent.

My original request is simple and still is asked of, regarding my organisations website. I have asked that an allegation that still exists unproved, be edited out. Again, this is easily googled.

On Direct Democracy Ireland (DDI) webpage its stated that the ideology of DDI is "Freeman on the land" (even that is stated wrong - its Freeman OF the land)) - nothing is further from the truth. I have stated (and the following can be easily checked)that:

• There is NO Freeman ideology in the constitution of DDI organisation.
• There is NO Freeman ideology in the rules of the DDI organisation.
• There is NO Freeman postings on our forums.
• There is NO Freeman ideology on our website.
• There is NO freeman mandate in the Mandate of the DDI organisation.
• There is NO Freeman direction of any kind in the DDI organisation.
• Even the founder Ray Whitehead was never a Freeman - and NEVER even ALLEGED to be one!

...Yet a political person - a competitor (COI conflict rules alone!) - we know now supports an opposing position - he's stated this himself, is allowed anon' to post that we are of a wacky Freeman origin - and ONLY references ALLEGATIONS, many which their own party has actually put out to try besmirch the name of our growing popular organisation! They continuously reference their own allegations submitted into their own socialist paper tabloids produced from their own offices in Dublin, Ireland - and they so this though their socialist papers/mag offering them then up as supposed sudden proof - when its not - its just allegations started by them in the first place - without no proof provided.

I will continue to peacefully battle for the truth to be told - I'm hoping that eventually Wikipedia and its page on Direct Democracy Ireland, will do so too and adjust what is a easy edit for anyone. I have NOT done it myself - as I could have done - out of respect to the COI rules that have been rightly pointed out to me. I respect the rules and I stand by them by upholding them now, after being informed of their existence.

I hope you will address the COI of others that is with a political agenda, altering what I wish to see changed, to disparage my organisation for the betterment of one he supports, edits and absolutely states he follows. I have given evidence to this matter also.

I do not wish to antagonise the good admin of Wikipedia but I on behalf of my many, many members, those that elected me and others, must continue to contest the lies that have been spread as ALLEGATIONS and accepted amazingly later as PROOF with nothing to back it subsequently!

If highlighting these lies means having to expose that Wikipedia is continuing to state incorrect facts and up to now presently stand alone (ye do) in stating them incorrectly (ye do) and have them posted on your site service (ye do), then I must highlight this, defending my members though other media be it website, TV or radio, etc for the clearing of their name.

I expect anyone else would do same if they were in my position and the position of my organisation. To not do this at least is to fail to represent the peaceful people that to this date, back the efforts made by Direct Democracy Ireland.

Jeff Rudd (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• At COIN, I found that Jeff Rudd had a clear COI with Direct Democracy Ireland topics.[191] Since he did have a valid point, I then posted an argument supporting Jeff at NPOVN.[192] Basically, reference to Freeman/Freemen in the Direct Democracy Ireland article should be removed for the time being. Unfortunately, Jeff then posted more of the above at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Direct Democracy Ireland, making it hard for editors to address the issue. His last post to article space was 17:37, 7 September 2013, so he is complying with the 01:13, 8 September 2013 COIN finding. If you look at the COIN thread, Jeff has toned it down a little. If you have time, please consider the NPOVN request and also help Jeff with his participation in Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Any more comments on this? Murry1975 (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to update on the DDI page Snappy has removed the reference in the 'Ideology' header to the Freeman movement which seems to be the main thing Jeff is unhappy about. However, the close links of the party and the party leader to the Freeman movement (which is well cited and referenced) has been retained in the body text. This seems like a fair compromise and I'm happy enough with it. --CommieMark (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• JR seems incapable of making a succinct argument with regard to any requested edits to the article and has instead resorted to personal attacks, threats and incoherent rants. His commentary at WP:COIN would be enough to get most ordinary editors blocked and he has posted not dissimilar rants here and on the article talk page. At least, I acknowledge, he seems to have backed down from his claim that all anonymous editors (pretty much everyone that hasn't done what he has done and assert his right to have his noble cause represented here because of his elected position) out themselves before being allowed to edit the article. But his continued attacks against another editor (today!) suggest he's not getting the message. His allegations that an unidentified editor has a ("no if's or but's") conflict if interest is a fallacy. He either needs to quit it with the personal attacks and unprovable (let alone unproven) allegations or he should be blocked, regardless of the validity of his claims. He's clearly not here to build WP, but to represent the interests of his political party. Stalwart111 08:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted a baiting by JR on the talkpage, he is here to shine a light of brillance on his party, discredit wikipedia and use chilling tactics by using his own webpage and threats of police intervention to achieve this. Murry1975 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not acceptable here under any circumstances, but he clearly hasn't worked that out. Suggest a 7-day cool-down block so he can spend some time reading WP:NPA, WP:AGF and some general 5 pillar stuff and working out whether he wants to build an encyclopedia or just defend his cause and attack others. Stalwart111 23:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I've also nominated his user page for deletion as an obvious WP:SOAPBOX violation. Stalwart111 00:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• While his ranting style of posting is off-putting, I'd suggest that everyone take a step back and consider that Jeff Rudd clearly has serious concerns about what we are publishing about him and his organization, and we should take that seriously. That doesn't mean we need to do what he asks, but we really shouldn't dismiss that out of hand just because of his abrasive and accusatory style. Gigs (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree, his serious concerns should be taken seriously (in the same way that we have WP:DOLT) . But he has now been told several times by several people that his "style" of attacking people and making accusations without evidence is unacceptable. Holding even legitimate concerns does not negate the need for civility, nor is it justification for unfounded personal attacks. Stalwart111 21:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

USA Track & Field‎

The article at USA Track & Field‎ seems to be under attack from, first an IP, then converting to different user names. It is the same individual, constantly trying to put forms of "swag" into the prose. I am requesting protection. Trackinfo (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like three days of semi-protection were put in a few hours before already, so the issue has been dealt with. Future requests should go to WP:Requests for page protection. Nate • (chatter) 00:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It may just be me, but given the 'contributions' of WSHUDBAJBKFD and SwagMaster222222 some sockpuppeteering may be going on. They share interests and even some texts. Kleuske (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

History merge request

The revision history of Template:Infobox South African town should be merged with that of Template:Infobox South African town 2011, so that the former can be deleted and the latter renamed. I don't know if there is any place where to ask this, so I leave the request here in the hope that a kind administrator will notice it.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen? --erachima talk 23:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I will try that, thank you.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks, accusations of vandalism by User:Snertking

I recently removed a section from Mel Sembler that I thought violated WP:BLP.[194] While this was clearly a legitimate content dispute, User:Snertking reacted by accusing myself and several other editors of vandalism:

• ..."User GabrielF has vandalized this page in past making false claims of unreliable sources and spurious BLP claims.)"[195]
• To an IP editor: "Thanks a lot, asshat. I have enough problems keeping vandalism from Sembler fans like GabrielF off the page without jerkwads like you pulling crap like you did. In fact your recent cute antics drew his attention and he deleted the whole section about the UN human rights thing"[196]

Snertking added a vandalism warning to my talk pages:

• [197]

At this point I brought the content issue to WP:BLPN and User:NorthBySouthBaranof agreed that the section was inappropriate per BLP and removed it. Snertking then left a vandalism warning on NorthBySouthBaranof's talk page:

• [198]

Another editor, User:Cullen328 saw the BLPN post and removed a separate section from the article, which he thought was also a BLP violation. Snertking responded by leaving a vandalism template on Cullen328's talk page:

• [199]

Cullen advised Snertking of the difference between vandalism and legitimate content disputes. I made the same point to Snertking[200]. However, Snertking left another vandalism tag on my talk page despite these two explanations.[201]. Snertking continued to accuse me of vandalism and of making personal attacks:

• "I WILL stand by my accusation of GabrielF vandalizing it in the past, as the proof is incontrovertible."[202]

As two editors have tried to discuss the difference between legitimate bold editing and vandalism with Snertking without success, I request administrator assistance. GabrielF (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have retracted my allegations of vandalism against NorthBySouthBaranof and even thanked him for his most recent edits, and understand what he did was correct. I jumped the gun on that one when I saw that he had had blocks against him in the past and assumed the worst. I was wrong on that.

There were two sections being blanked, one that I now realize was legitimate, and initially by northbysouthbaranof. The second, which is being claimed as a BLP issue and being repeatedly blanked by GabrielF, is not. The text in question refers to a flurry of press articles covering the alleged invasion of privacy of a public figure. It is well sourced from multiple [WP:RS] publications, yet GabrielF continues to blank it. This is not bold editing, it is warring and vandalism on his part. My accusations of vandalism by against GabrielF via blanking sections without concensus, especially after a previous consensus to leave it standing had been reached, still stand. He has had a history of such vandalism in the past, blanking out large sections of content that reflects negatively on the subject of the article. I would ask that someone check the IP history of GabrielF and see if any edit from him of any page have come from the 208.69.24.0/24 block, which is owned by sembler.com, as there has also been a history of similar blanking type vandalism coming from that range. Snertking (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• If you want to open an WP:SPI case, please do so. Although ANI is not the place for content, I cannot fathom why anyone would believe that the full paragraph about the stolen penis pump would/should belong in the article - both WP:BRD and WP:BLP do apply, and I would remove the section immediately and start a WP:CONSENSUS discussion on the article talkpage as to whether or not to retain it - or perhaps small parts of it. As it sits now, GabrielF was very much right to remove it. As to the rest of this complaint, the apologies and retractions are welcome - this incident in and of itself was something that WP:WQA would have handled ages ago - but someone in their infinite wisdom shut that down. ES&L 10:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • User:Snertking continues to make baseless accusations against me. There is no grounds for an SPI. The previous edits Snertking is complaining about occurred over 18 months ago and concerned similar BLP issues as have been raised today. Raising BLP issues on an article that was once edited by someone from the article subject's company is hardly grounds for SPI. If Snertking thinks I am representing Sembler, perhaps he should read Straight, Incorporated, which I completely rewrote and decide whether it deals unfairly with the organization. If ANI is not the appropriate forum then I will transfer the matter to WP:RFC/U as multiple editors have engaged User:Snertking on this matter without success. GabrielF (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Wow. The subject of this BLP founded a drug treatment program. A former patient of that program claimed to have found a penis pump (aka "personal item") in the subject's trash. LOLs and injunctions and media circus ensue. Now an article at Wikipedia is used to immortalize the attack on the subject by a clearly deranged individual. And the editor who removes the material (GabrielF) gets the abuse recorded above. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • After I explained why I removed the section, both at WP:BLPN and on my talk page, Snertking repeated his accusation of vandalism against me. Read the HuffPo sources - advocacy opinion pieces defending the harassment with lurid headlines. And those headlines are in the article now, unless they've just been removed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have just summarily closed a retaliatory SPI filed by Snertking against GabrielF. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've recorded on the article talkpage my shame at seeing Wikipedia take over from the individual with a grudge and invade Sembler's privacy all over again. Thank you for removing the section, Johnuniq. User:Snertking is strongly advised against further perpetuation of this campaign and these accusations in different Wikipedia fora. Bishonen | talk 12:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC).

Issue warning to Bonadea and stop glorifying Hindi actors of post 2000 era.

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

---

Wikipedia is source of information for majority of the media. So there should not be over glorification or an article depriving an actor of the glory he has received. Both are wrong.

User Bonadea has been vandalizing artciles on senior actors especially those who worked in films before the year 2000 and are now not that active. Most of the times glorifying careers of certain actors - like Rishi Kapoor, Dharmenra, Amitabh Bachchan, Ranbir Kapoor or other wise absolving certain actors of their unique achivements like in case of certain other actors like Ashok Kumar, Uttam Kuamr, Shashi Kapoor.

Bonadea probably does not have any proper knowledge of Indian Hindi films but still without even going through references has been provided in most cases - bondea keeps removing any worthwhile information which are needed to be mentioned.

• 1

Example is career of Rishi Kapoor. Present wikipedia artcile on Rishi Kapoor is as if Rishi has been super-successful from 1971-till present - which is absolutely false information. Rishi Kapoor had too many failures- which means commercial flops. In India terms like bifurcation into solo lead hero, 2 hero or multi star cast films are made and also success or popularity is determined by number of successful ventures an actor gives. But Bonadea has been removing the information - that Rishi Kapoor had only 11 hits of the 51 solo hero films he did and only 24 were successful among the 41 multi hero films he did. Even in supporting actor seession - almost every film of his has been mentioned - which is needless. Just see talk page of Rishi Kapoor.

• 2

Similarly take case of article on Dharmendra - Dharmendra has had too many flops from 1980-2013. Just see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dharmendra&diff=572059769&oldid=572052091 . Bonadea in her version keeps mentioning - lines like Dillagi was successfil - whereas truth is it was not a success and Dharmendra appeared with Hema in 35 films from 1970-2013, of them Dharam Hema were romantic lead pair in 31 films of which 20 became hits but see version of Bonadea which gives misleading information. The 2 paras removed by Bonadea - contained the information regarding how largely unsuccessful he was from 1989-2003. Be it any user - whether an administrator or a user who has done may edits or any one for that matter - if any reference is provided for some fact in any language - then that needs to be incorporated in wikipedia. If such acts like What Bonadea did to the above articles continue then WORLD would get wrong information.

• 3

My suggestion - Ask Bonadea to stop concentrating on old senior actors and to stay off from these actors

• 4

why not remove POV (excessive POV) , words which over glorify etc in case of younger generation actors from India - Ranbir Kapoor and mant others who have debuted or are working in Hindi films from 2000 onwards. In case of new actor's wikipedia articles - they look promotional artciles - self glorifying artciles.

Example see artcile on Ranbir Kapoor - in the first 3 paras Ranbir Kapoor has been glorified - most of the lines have been repeated again and again in the article on Ranbir.Excessive Trivia informations have been shared in Ranbir Kapoor article in the sections - Debut and success (2007–10)and Rockstar and beyond . In addition another para has been added saying In the Media.

• 5

Why is double standards being followed in wikipedia? On one side - all Bollywood actors (those especially who did more than 100 or 150 films )who worked between 1930-1999 have been deprived of a proper wikipedia artcile - detailing their achievements and on the other side actors like Ranbir Kapoor are having wikipedia artciles which are excessively detailed with unnecessary trivia - although they are just 6 or 10 films old.Verify50123 (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is created by volunteers and we cannot force anyone to write about anything they do not find interesting. If you find actors from previous time periods interesting, YOU can make the articles better! Find reliably published sources and add that content into articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Latest User:Shrik88music sock blocked. Checkuser confirmation would be nice, but when a new account uses its third edit to attack another editor about content on ANI, it's almost never a good-faith report by a new user. Acroterion (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Erachima

Erachima is an editor I have had no interaction with outside of his sudden appearance in the MOSAM discussion on September 12. Erachima moved the contested and unofficial MOSAM page to back to a community guideline despite it never going through the process. Originally, AdamCuerden noticed the MOSAM never passing the guideline and WhatamIdoing affirmed it and noticed the notability section of MOSAM as being an conflict with the policy page. The editor jumped into the conflict and began making accusations and attacks against me.[210][211] Including a tacit acknowledgement of bad faith when I asked for assuming good faith.[212] The reinsertion of something policy is against with three editors seemingly in agreement was part of the problem.[213] Despite asking Erachima to stop making personal attacks and stop posting on my page, it continues. I removed his posts three times with said summary and also messaged his talk page.[214][215][216] After these requests, Erachima posted again and I promptly removed it. [217][218] I ask this user refrain from posting on my talk page and stop with the polemic characterization of my stance on MOSAM as a "vendetta". It is unconstructive and certainly unwanted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Users are allowed to do as they wish with messages once they are on their talk pages, but they are not allowed to prohibit posting messages there.
  Per WP:NPA, "Discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion." I maintain that my characterization of Chris's antagonistic personal relationship to the MOS:ANIME policy is accurate and salient to the discussions at MOS:ANIME and of MOS:ANIME at the Policy pump, but will refrain from the use of the loaded term "vendetta" in the future.
  On a sidenote, I find Chris's repeated emphasis that he "doesn't even know me", "has had no interaction with me", etc. baffling, as all edits and statements made on Wikipedia are a matter of public record and it takes minimal effort to become acquainted with someone's history on a subject. --erachima talk 22:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @Erachima: Just a minor correction - users are allowed to "ban" you from their talkpage, by requesting you do not post there (except for required notices). It is often found that failing to acknowledge and follow that request constitutes harassment. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Interesting. I believe that is a change in policy since I was last involved in any of the local drama. My recollection is that talk page bans were a community measure given following evidence of harassment, and were not permitted simply because some user didn't like hearing from another user. --erachima talk 23:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
      • It is not a policy based ban - any blocks that have come from these bans have been because it has been seen by the rest of the community as harassment to continue posting on a user's talkpage when they've asked you to stop. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
        • I see. In that case, if it remains a matter of judgment and politeness rather than a hard rule, I will continue my current stance of not posting on Chris's talkpage unless he, say, puts another giant automated template demanding a response on my talk page. Which is what he did in the latter case he complains about.
          In the former, he had merely insulted me in an edit summary, which I will admit it would have been more mature to simply ignore. --erachima talk 23:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to ask a user to stay off your talk page, it should not be done with a parting "check a dictionary" parting shot. NE Ent 02:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't the one changing something that three editors and policies said was a problem and responding with a POINTy comment when reverted.[219] Was it the best response, probably not, but I didn't want to get into someone's POINTy response on the industry usage of "licenser" instead of "licensor".[220][221] Licenser is preferred, and is used on sites like Anime News Network[222], Otaku News[223] and has 15.6 million Google hits to 86k. Call it regional or not, but I see a preference in Japanese news to use "licenser" which is also prevalent in media in English countries. It was a snide and baiting remark that I was in no mood to deal with, but converting from one English dialect to another when its remained the standard and stable for years is rather pesky and bothering an editor about "oh you disagree with this" is pushing it. If not for any of the arguments already made, why not WP:RETAIN as well? This is like changing "color" to "colour" when its not covered by TIES and its been "color" for years. But, yes, I disagree with that alteration. Though I wish I could strike that part in hindsight. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

In no possible way does telling you that your claim that you disagreed with "all of" my edit immediately falls apart under inspection because your reversion included de-corrections of spelling inconsistency (not to mention various other unobjectionable rephrasings) violate "Do Not Disrupt Wikipedia to Prove a Point". That rule is about attempting to turn pages into object lessons (an excellent article candidate for expansion, incidentally) in why a user or policy is wrong, e.g. adding {{cn}} to every single statement another user edits because you're mad about your own unreferenced statements being flagged by them, or making your signature super-obnoxious in protest of people with illegibly shaded signatures. Whether you like licensor or licenser more is irrelevant, they cannot both be used at the same time on the same page, which they were on the page in question.
So, let's lay out the course of events here: You blanket-reverted an edit because you didn't like one part of it.[224] When I told you not to do that you claimed you hadn't.[225] When that claim was proven incorrect you banned me from your talk page and insulted me.[226] Now you're stuck defending yourself in the ANI you initiated, where it appears your only relevant defense is that you were "in no mood to deal with" being criticized.[227]
So, I've agreed to stop referring to your position towards MOS:ANIME as a vendetta. Have you learned your lesson about confusing disagreement with harassment and frivolously threatening people with admin action? If so, I believe we can mark this subject resolved. If not, I intend to document your pattern of belligerent and hypocritical responses to mild editorial disagreements, WP:OWNership issues, and general problems engaging in civil collaboration, and we'll see where things go from there. Here's a great example to start with: You banned a respected editor from your talk page because he told you that you were using a template wrong. --erachima talk 18:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And here I was going to apologize for the comment, but you not only take something out of context to continue this drama on something you know nothing about, but you are provoking me at ANI. No offense, but every time I try in offer compromise and work together it only takes some new third party from A&M's history to create more drama just as things start to settle down. I dislike the choice of words used throughout this, but I asked for Erachima to stay off my page and it has been acknowledged. I'm not going to get into discussing Ryulong - he's no party to this and its not fair to drag him into this discussion. I wish I didn't make that snippy remark, I had one hell of a terrible day involving all three of my vehicles breaking and being stranded for hours, with the rescue car also having issues. I regret it, but Erachima doesn't want to drop the hostilities and apparently doesn't want to let bygones be bygones or an apology. MOSAM and A&M, the localconsensus are something bigger than I and will not be handled here, so this has likely run its course. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't want an apology, I want you to learn. You're the one who chose to drag this to ANI and make a scene of it, which is why I'm talking here. If you don't want your dirty laundry aired out in a public venue, then don't ban people from conversing with you personally. If you want excused because you were having a terrible day, extend some of the compassion and understanding you expect everybody to give you to the other editors you're interacting with. Those "third parties from A&M's history" are better known as "long-standing community consensus". And you may regret this now, but "regret" is hardly the emotion conveyed by giant automated warning templates and username-titled ANI smear posts. --erachima talk 04:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not excuse A&M's actions of mass removing content "per MOSAM" and the community agreed. MOSAM is not an official community guideline; it is rightfully a Wikiproject MOS and other editors agree and cite the policy pages. The "dirty laundry" is really a misleading link to attack me further. I thanked Ryulong for correcting my template use (it is my first response to!), but I disagreed at his wholesale removal of content and repeated redirecting of notable content per "MOSAM". Though that matter is not worth discussing here. I only came to ANI because you would not stay off my talk page and made a string of personal attacks and bad faith accusations. I said I was upset to see all this bad faith and personal attacks directed at me and asked that my opposition stopped being referred to as a crusade.[228] 11 minutes later you make a personal attack by saying, "User:ChrisGualtieri has a vendetta against the MOS:MANGA because it is opposed to his article fork at Dragon Ball (anime).
Hopefully we can all work together to create a better guideline, but I don't see that happening while Chris continues to assault the validity of the page rather than disputing specifics of its content."[229] Of course I am stunned by this for a number of reasons.[230] Though your post at MOSAM points to me and uses "crusade" again.[231] I was already upset with the attacks as indicated by my first post and 11 minutes later I get one from you. And 10 minutes later another including the "crusade" reference which you already knew I was upset about. I don't think that it was unreasonable to warn you for. Saying I have a "vendetta" or even a "crusade", as in religious crusades, is extremely inflammatory. A Twinkle warning seemed appropriate when you continued to make them despite repeated calls for you to not do so. Now, its over, let the drama die and let's do something productive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So that's a no then. See you in the inevitable RFC. --erachima talk 06:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Contributor lacking clue

Resolved

 – Blocked, needs to explain

Sorry folks but I've had enough of trying to deal with Rockin It Loud (talk · contribs), whose recently-blanked talk page was chock-full of warnings and explanations of where they have been going wrong. I am not the only person who has been struggling and the list of issues is long, including repeated reinstatements of unsourced content, repeated recreations of deleted articles, addition of redlinked categories, creation of dubious "conjunction" articles such as ones about Buddhist Brahmins, poor citations, a seemingly complete unwillingness to discuss except via edit summary ... the list goes on.

For the repeated reinstatements and poor sourcing, please see as an example the recent goings-on at List of Shudra Hindu saints. Recreated articles include the trio of Ethics of Hinduism / Sanatana Dharma ideal / Sanātan Dharm. Some of their conjunction articles were raised at WT:INB, eg: in this thread. They seem almost never to engage in discussion and it is becoming very tiresome. Can anyone offer some advice? I do think that they probably mean well but they are simply not getting it. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have blocked indefinitely: the incompetence issue, esp. when it comes to sourcing content, is an important factor, and the other is the complete lack of communication in response to concerns expressed by many editors besides Sitush. Telling is the number of edits they made to their own talk page, which was nicely filled with issues: they made two edits there. They may be easily unblocked and return to the fold if they explain, on their own talk page, that they understand the concerns and are willing to work on them. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive anon contributor stalking my edits

See Special:Contributions/49.249.26.44. They have just appeared, are stalking my edits across a range of articles and are doing so by reverting perfectly valid work without attempting to fix the issues raised, some of which have been tagged for two years. I have a fair idea who this actually is but SPI will not link IPs to user accounts. In any event, it is point-y, disruptive & I would appreciate admin intervention. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if it's who I think it is, and whether our guesses are the same. It's a moot point, though; Floq beat me to the punch. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no clue who it is, but it's clearly a returning disruptive editor of some kind. IP blocked for a week, let someone know if other IP's crawl out of the woodwork. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Out of interest, if an IP is blocked then does that affect a logged-in registered user operating from that IP? I suspect not but it might aid my sock hunting if it did. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That's one of the block options; it hasn't been turned on for this block, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I see. In any event, they're certainly evading their block as Special:Contributions/49.249.13.176 already. I've not got time to evaluate whether these are truly constructive (there is a source involved but that doesn't mean much in itself). - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've have just looked and it is almost all bad: one of the two sources added to the lead comes from a swami, self-published via a p.o.d. outfit called Trafford Publishing, the other does not support anything except a subphrase; much of the rest has been reinstated without sourcing and includes removal of a valid cn tag - hopeless, but I cannot revert. If someone does and they pop up again then the article will likely need semi-protection. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits from first IP rolled back, second IP blocked (1week), page semi-protected for 3 weeks. If a rangeblock is needed, ask another admin, I don't do these. MLauba ^(Talk) 20:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The range is biggish, by my lights, and while I don't exactly see any good edits from it, a sample suggests they're mostly good faith and not to do with Sitush. But I'm extremely proud of having finally learned how to do range blocks, so you might let me know if you see any other brothers and sisters of your two, Sitush. Doing a range block sets me up for days. :-) Bishonen | talk 20:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC).

• Yeah, right now it's in the /19 range (x.x.0~31.*). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

URL spamming under the guise of fake references

Two users, Grubru (talk · contribs) and Wordpressstar (talk · contribs), appear to be viral marketing the website "sgcafe.com" by adding false references (URLs to the website in the guise of citations) to a giant plethora of articles, many cases where the "citation" addition doesn't even make sense.

• Such edits by Grubru: [232] [233] [234] [235] [236] [237] [238] [239] [240] [241] [242] [243]
• Such edits by Wordpressstar: [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249] [250] [251] [252] [253] [254] [255] [256] [257] [258] [259] [260] [261] [262] [263] [264] [265] [266] [267] [268] [269] [270] [271] [272] [273]

As an example of what I mean by these users inserting and shoehorning in references in a manner which seems forced and doesn't make sense, refer to the following:

• This edit by Grubru appears to be adding a citation to the claim "New characters... unlockable, bonus boss for most characters, boss for Kazuya" at Tekken 2, however the linked URL has nothing to do with Tekken 2 at all (it has to do with a Tekken Tag Tournament 2 tournament at Timezone in mid-September 2013, where participants get $30 game credits)
• This edit by Grubru adds a URL about a restaurant, which has nothing to do with the sentence being "cited" ("Atlus USA has also published the tactical role-playing game Tactics Ogre and Game Boy Advance remakes of the Kunio-kun and Double Dragon games"). A similar edit can be seen here, which shoehorns in the same URL on another article.
• The article Perfect Cherry Blossom is about a computer game released in 2002; this edit by Grubru adds a citation about visiting Tokyo to attend the 2013 Comic Market to the article.
• This edit by Grubru adds a citation about 5pb. in the middle of a completely unrelated article, Touhou Project.
• This edit by Wordpressstar adds a fake citation about a PVC figure for "The beautiful princess of Alabasta, Vivi Nefertari" in a completely unrelated article. This is also done on another completely unrelated article, Swedish Chef, in this edit. Identical URL is also placed in this edit, and many others.
• This article is about the Mobile Suit Gundam AGE anime series; this edit by Wordpressstar attempts to shoehorn in a URL regarding the completely unrelated Gundam Breaker (a PlayStation 3 game with a completely different storyline) into the article. The same URL is also shoehorned in here at List of Sgt. Frog characters.
• This edit by Wordpressstar shoehorns in a URL advertising clothing as a "reference" for a videogame's opening theme song.

Both editors do this frequently; I don't see any purpose behind shoe-horning in completely unrelated references, other than some kind of underground promotion scheme. As far as I am aware, authors who write for sgcafe.com get paid money based on how many hits their articles get. These false references may be used to boost viewership. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the edits I concur. They both appear to be for an SGCafe account called SpartanChef trying to increase their hits. None of these are valid references. Even if they're not to drive business to SGCafe for this SpartanChef editor, they're still not here to build an encyclopaedia and it's still vandalism. I'm tempted just to indef them both myself but would like to see what others say. Unfortunately I've been seeing more of this kind of vandalism lately with people adding references and other reading to spam certain sources. Canterbury Tail talk 18:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Had the links been relevant, I'd be inclined to AGF and just warn them against commercial promotion, but as the links are also misrepresented, their intentions are clearly insidious. Your instinct is correct, block away. --erachima talk 19:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

In other news, we have a similar case with 86.20.42.223 (talk · contribs), who has exclusively made spam edits promoting the website "sentuamsg.com". There are zero (0) constructive edits by this editor since the dawn of time. Diffs: [274] [275] [276] [277] [278] [279] [280] [281] [282] [283] [284] [285] [286] [287] [288]. On their talk page, I've warned them before on 12 September 2013; they have continued their behaviour on 13 September 2013. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• sgcafe.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.sgcafe.com

We have a third user, MDavid.me (talk · contribs) (about these reports):

MER-C whoadded sgcafe.com

COIBot 407 records; Top 10 editors who have added sgcafe.com: Wordpressstar (64), Voidz (38), MDavid.me (31), Grubru (28), [redacted] (26), Nickaang (18), Madmoron (11), [redacted] (10), NyGuha (10), ClueBot NG (9).
MER-C whatadded Grubru
COIBot 36 records; Domains added by grubru: sgcafe.com (28), translate.google.com (4), allmusic.com (1), imdb.com (1), uoregon.edu (1), homei-city.gov.tw (1).
MER-C whatadded Wordpressstar
COIBot 141 records; Top 10 domains added by wordpressstar: sgcafe.com (64), business.avn.com (9), djbooth.net (7), rubyhornet.com (6), google.com (4), fakeshoredrive.com (3), chicagoreader.com (3), smokingsection.uproxx.com (3), complex.com (3), themusicninja.com (3).
MER-C whatadded MDavid.me

COIBot 35 records; Domains added by mdavid.me: sgcafe.com (31), codeplex.com (1), rage4.com (1), rankstar.de (1), books.google.co.in (1).

It's interesting to see the intersection with the User:Nickaang sockfarm --- User:Voidz, User:Madmoron and User:NyGuha are all sockpuppets. I've pruned two unrelated usernames, let me know if you want them.

• sentuamsg.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.sentuamsg.com

MER-C whoadded sentuamsg.com
COIBot 10 records; Editors who have added sentuamsg.com: 86.20.42.223 (10).

Just warn and block this one in the usual way. MER-C 02:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment — Has sgcafe been made aware of this persistent issue? Further, should it be blacklisted? It seems like blog-only content to me... DKqwerty (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, [[289]] 88.104.27.75 (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so sgcafe was added for possible blacklisting. However, have sgcafe's owners/contributors been made aware of the issue we're having with spamming? Just seems like a courtesy to make them aware before blacklisting their site. DKqwerty 04:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that it's necessary to informm them before blacklisting, ultimately it doesn't matter who's responsible the point of blacklisting is to protect wikipedia and isn't intended as a slight against a site or its owners, and in the unlikely event some links to sgcafe are needed somewhere they can be whitelisted. And it's not like there's necessarily much they can do if they aren't responsible (and if they are there's no reason to inform them). Of course this doesn't mean we shouldn't inform them if we have reason to believe the site owners may not be aware, simply that blacklisting is independent of that. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked both the posters noted in the initial post. While there is some good edits in there for one of them, the blatant misrepresentation is not acceptible. Canterbury Tail talk 11:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Graham Bean

@Grahambean: created his own article in 2009 and has been disrupting it for a while but moreso recently (as evident from his talk page and contribs). He recetly went to the help desk to complain about "libel" on his article (while also making a legal threat) and a person re-adding it whenever it was removed (by him). Not only did i find the claim in the article vague, but also cited. I rewrote it to a more accurate and less vague degree and warned Graham about WP:COI. He has since persisted in vandalising/blanking the article and removing the maintenance tags. He has received multiple warnings for this behaviour and AIV have sent me here to get it sorted. I assume he thought Wikipedia is censored at his will, but he has been warned numerous times that this is not true. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on the article's talk page, or where you were referred here by AIV, but it's entirely possible that I am missing it because it seems like instead of any type of communication, there have just been back and forth page/section blanking. So, from what I can tell, he asked for the page to be deleted at the help desk, and since he teeters on the edge of notability, why not just AFD it for a first step and see what happens? Ditch ∝ 16:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Jenova has discussed with the user on his talkpage, at the help desk, and other places. The user continues to make problematic disruptive COI edits without discussing them first. An indefinite WP:NOTHERE block at least until he is willing to communicate would be beneficial. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 17:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I've spoken to Graham both at the help desk and on his user page and he refuses to reply or listen. Why would the article talk page be any different? He appears to be having a hissy fit that something controvertial and potentially illegal he did ended up on his article (cited reliably too) and no one will agree to remove it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 19:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Potentially illegal? This is a BLP we're talking about. Are you sure that the assertions in dispute are sourced well enough? I have concerns about overall notability, not to mention whether his legal troubles have merit in the article. This is why I'd like to see discussion on the article talk page before coming to ANI. Not just for communication between you and him, but to openly hash out these concerns...or at least record that they exist... in a way that outside parties, like myself, can make heads or tails of what the problem is, and perhaps weigh in in a consensus discussion. As it stands, we're at ANI talking about it. I think the obvious COI is a problem that should be addressed, but we shouldn't lose sight of the forest from the trees. Ditch ∝ 02:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

[290] - "citation needed", my arse. Please refer to policy 88.104.27.75 (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• That IP's edit seems fine to me. I agree that maybe an AfD would be a proper venue to see if the article can stand in the first place; if the sourcing is indeed so problematic that we can't write a decent biography, then BLP1E might well apply. (I don't see what talk page discussion would solve, though it might be helpful to create a record, even if that record is subsequently deleted after an AfD discussion.) Drmies (talk) 04:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Haul this to AfD, it'll fail to pass muster. Carrite (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Okay, I have nominated at AFD. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

User:DonCalo insisting on pushing a controversial POV in the lead of Southern Italian crime syndicates

After my removal of the description "Mafia-type" in the lead of a mainland Italian crime group Camorra, User:DonCalo [[291]] restored the edit and went on a crusade to include it on every other Southern Italian article: [292] [293] [294]

He is using the argument that since some Italian authorities conflate all Southern Italian groups under one label (IMHO he is misinterpreting Italian law as its a very convoluted issue but I won't get into that since it's a content issue), that Wikipedia articles should consistently label each and every crime group in Italy as "Mafia-type" (capital M Mafia, not lowercase m mafia). This is pure POV pushing because in Italy, "Mafia" refers solely to the Sicilian Mafia - the Camorra, 'Ndrangheta, and Sacra Corona Unita, among others, are managed and operated completely differently from the Mafia. Mainland groups are a totally different world from that of Sicily. Comparisons of the American Mafia to Sicilian Mafia are one thing as American families are overwhelmingly of Sicilian descent, but to push this POV on mainland groups is ridiculous, inaccurate, and POV. Article leads should stick to the basic facts, not the POV of a government or prejudicial prosecutors (the Italian state and authorities are notorious for their racist attitude towards Southerners and they lump all Southerners in one group as a way of tainting the region as being part of a vast criminal conspiracy.)

At any rate, this is a content dispute so none of that matters here, but the POV pushing has to stop. It's not appropriate for the lead and this edit war is absurd. Laval (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, Italians are all the same race; if that's your idea of something neutral, you're the one advocating an error and a specific point of view. Nyttend (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Coincidentially, the same issue came up at the Mafia disambigution page where several editors agreed upon using "Mafia-type" organisation. I also provided several sources and there is a consensus among scholars (check [295]). This is not a state pushing a POV. Mafia-type does not mean that they are the same as the Mafia, but that the structure and modus operandi of these organisations are quite similar. It is also explained overhere. - DonCalo (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the main source I used Mafia and Mafia-type organizations in Italy by Sicilian born and Siclian based Mafia-expert Umberto Santino, was removed by Laval from the Camorra article as prejudiced while it is a chapter from a scientific work. He did so after asking for sources. When I did so, the source is labeled as prejudiced. Apparently, every source that does not agree with Laval is now considered prejudiced. - DonCalo (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Other evidence that the 'Ndrangheta, Camorra etc. are considerded Mafia-type organisation is provided by the Anti-Mafia Investigations Directorate (Dia), a specialised interagency investigative organization specializing in Mafia investigations all over Italy, which was set up in 1991 with the full support of Sicilian-born anti-Mafa judge Giovanni Falcone, who was killed by the Mafia, see Fight against Mafia-type organisations. - DonCalo (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Scholar Letizia Paoli even extends mafia-type organizations to non-Italian organizations such the so-called Chinese Triads and Tongs, and the 3,000 groups belonging to the Japanese Yakuza, precisely because of their comparable structure and modus operandi, see The paradoxes of organized crime. - DonCalo (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that DonCalo is pushing his POV, but rather that his edits reflect the current consensus of experts on the topic, here. In Italy, all those crime syndicates are known as "associazioni di tipo mafioso" (mafia-like associations) under art. 416-bis of the penal code (the article also contains a definition of "associazione di tipo mafioso"). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The Key School

I removed unreferenced claims.

They have been reinstated several times. I do not wish to 'edit war'.

The Key School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

88.104.27.75 (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh... hmm. This is interesting. On the one hand, 88's page blanking is inappropriate. On the other hand, parts of the page read like promotional content or even possible copyvio, and on the third the article actually has a rather sizeable number of contributors over a long time. So, however you slice it, something's odd here. --erachima talk 05:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

In what way is it "inappropriate" to remove unreferenced shite? 88.104.27.75 (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment — User appears to be on a vendetta regarding unsourced info per this edit. Also seems to be easily agitated, as when referring to unreferenced info as "shite." User is in need of guidance regarding what is appropriate removal of content (which I've attempted myself, but may need other editors' feedback as well). DKqwerty 05:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not a 'vendetta'.

I removed unreferenced claims - which I truly believe is in the interests of this project. I ask that anyone reinstating the information please adhere to the policies of this project, specifically WP:V to provide appropriate references for the facts. 88.104.27.75 (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a fairly obvious case WP:POINTy editing. A quick look at the IP's edit history will reveal an ongoing dispute over WP:V on various talk pages, including this noticeboard. The IP also blanked a whole section on Mean curvature for being "unreferenced" [296] when it was properly referenced with in-line citations. -SFK2 (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If a non admin may insert a comment here, 88, as a very new editor, might not be aware of a few things. One, US high schools are virtually automatically notable and except for a very basic indication of their actual existence (the school's website is generally considered enough), don't need references for the article to exist. That being said, I agree it is pretty much a pile of WP:SCHOOLCRUFT and WP:PROMO. Blanking it is not the answer, however. 88 should take a look at the school article guidelines and try to judiciously apply citation needed tags, while rewording the promo out. If he is not up to it, I will be happy to take a look at it after church tomorrow. I have quite a bit of experience trimming down school articles in the condition it is in.

Also, let us please remember we are dealing with a new editor here. Let's not get the boomerang out quite yet. 88, I will leave you an invite to a new users Q&A board on your talk, and I will be happy to try to answer any questions you have if you would like to come to my talk page and discuss it. It is much safer than coming here and complaining, and also much more the proper thing to do. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, after his last edit summary, I can understand why you are blocking him. However, his edit that was attached to it really isn't far from what I would have done to clean the article up. I may have left some of the history, but all the rest of his deletion was good as gold. That is one crappy article. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked the user; their first post to this board made clear that they were aware that it's not appropriate to edit war, so I saw no need to warn first. If another admin disagrees, they are welcome to remove or reduce the block without discussing with me first. This block has nothing to do with the content of the article, to which I will make no comment at this time. It is solely due to the disruption caused by edit warring rather than getting consensus for the changes first. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That works. Altho someone restored it, another editor put it back to 88's last edit due to copyvio. I'll see what can be done with it tomorrow. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Taking back anything I may have said in his defense, 88 is definitely either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. At the risk of being across WP:DFTT, do any of you mop holders think talk page restriction or a block extension are in order for his continued battleground attitude? He just nominated a perfectly good sandbox for deletion, through a proxy, for pete's sake. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I have warned them. Continued disruption will result in their talk page being revoked, and potentially the block extended. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The IPs block has been extended to 72 hours, and talk page access has now been revoked due to abuse of their talk page privileges. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

@Barek: The IP still has talk page access, make sure to tick the relevant box! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It's ticked now. I suppose somebody tried pointing out that with the exception of BLPs WP:V only requires that references exist, not that they be in the article... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the block - I thought I had ticked the box, I must've accidentally selected the wrong box. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• I noted it on the blocking admin's talk page, but I'll leave a note here as well. I'm concerned by the fact that the anon was blocked for edit warring while removing unreferenced, unencyclopedic, promotional information that was later determined to be copyvio, while the actions of SFK2 and the others using rollback inappropriately have been ignored. Ryan Vesey 18:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• The block was strictly for edit warring, the content wasn't a factor in the block - the content being reverted did not fall into any of the exceptions that allow for edit warring (okay, technically, the content was eventually found to be copyvios, which is a listed exception - but the the block was done prior to a copyvio issue being spotted by someone else). As to rollback reasons, I have never patrolled for behavioral guideline issues related to rollback reasons, with the exception of secondary violations within those reasons such as NPA. If someone else wants to review them, they are welcome to do so. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• "the block was done prior to a copyvio issue being spotted by someone else" <-- I noted the potential copyvio before the guy was blocked. It only wasn't confirmed until later. --erachima talk 20:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Further, 88 never cited WP:COPYVIO as the criteria for their blanking. DKqwerty 20:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Consistent Vandalism from an IP Address (two previous blocks)

The IP Address 68.37.0.160 has been making several incorrect changes, mostly sports pages. Some recent changes that needed to be reverted:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington_Mystics&diff=prev&oldid=572912382
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington_Wizards&diff=prev&oldid=572912039
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Hockey_League&diff=prev&oldid=572911384
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philip_Rivers&diff=prev&oldid=571816365

This user has been [blocked twice before]. Grande (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Those edits were already reversed; IP is not active today and therefore I don't see a need to block at this time. Note: I have fixed your block log link because it wasn't working earlier. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:61.195.237.17

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.

---

Every edit this IP has made has been undone as being disruptive, the most recent being at List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes can something be done about it? I have given warnings already. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

IP now warned by me and another user. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Taken to WP:AN3 now that they have exceeeded 3RR. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

and now blocked for socking. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing at RfC

USchick continues to misrepresent other editors at Talk:Jewish Bolshevism#RfC: Is Jewish Bolshevism a conspiracy theory?. She continues to argue that editors who consider it a conspiracy theory are in fact saying that it is a legitimate theory supported by historians. She also says that no sources have been provided, when they in fact have. This line of discussion is disruptive to the RfC.

I request that USchick be banned from the talk page until the RfC concludes.

Here are some of the comments she has made:

• ...To assign Jewish anything to the Bolsheviks long after they're all dead is history revisionism[20:20, 12 September 2013
• I'm not aware of any historians that would confirm...that Jewish people were the driving force behind Communism.[15:52, 14 September 2013]
• ...it would be helpful to list some reliable sources.... [22:53, 14 September 2013]
• Winston Churchill's editorial "Zionism versus Bolshevism" claims that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement. It's a conspiracy when people claim this to be true.[22:17, 14 September 2013]
• ...Anyway, would anyone like to post a reliable source that claims Jews are responsible for creating Communism? Since editors claim that there are lots of historians who agree on this point, let's examine them please.[15:27, 15 September 2013]
• What sources establish that Bolshevism was the brainchild of Jewish people?...[02:38, 16 September 2013]
• None of the editors are willing to provide sources or discuss them even though the article is locked....[03:06, 16 September 2013]

Here are some of the replies that have been provided to her:

• While the writers who advocated the theory of Jewish Bolshevism are not reliable sources for Jews and Communism, academics who write about them are reliable sources for Jewish Bolshevism, and the advocates may occassionally be quoted. [TFD 14:56, 14 September 2013]
• You seem to misunderstand the issue here. The point is not about whether the theory/belief that communism or bolshevism (a common synonym of the time) is/was part of the Jewish conspiracy to control the world, as propagated by Nazis and other anti-Semitic political movements, is correct or has validity as a mainstream theory...The point is whether third-party sources have identified Nazis and other anti-Semites as having held and propagated that belief. They have and they did. I don't know of a historian that would dispute that. [N-HH 16:02, 14 September 2013]
• ...You are also entirely missing the point of this discussion and are cluttering the talkpage with pointless posts.[Director 16:21, 15 September 2013]
• UShick, as you say, "It's a conspiracy when people claim [the Bolshevik movement is a Jewish movement] is true." That's what the article is about, the conspiracy theory that the Bolshevik movement is a Jewish movement. You appear to have difficulty distinguishing between describing a conspiracy theory and promoting it. Sources have been provided, including The Myth of Jewish Communism: A Historical Interpretation, which incidentally is by an historian, is not fringe and does not promote the conspiracy theory.[TFD 16:52, 15 September 2013]

TFD (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply

• The article Jewish Bolshevism was locked for edit warring when TFD asked for comments at the NPOV noticeboard. That's when I became involved on the talk page. I commented that the sources used in the article do not support statements made in the article, I gave examples, and asked for additional sources. I also questioned the reason for having the article. I suggested that editors should provide sources and discuss what the sources actually say, since that's what the admin who locked the article asked them to do. Apparently TFD didn't like my comments, even though he started the RfC. No sources have been provided and I was accused of disrupting their talk page. He and others claim that I "misunderstand the issue" when in reality, their misunderstanding of the issue is what got the article locked in the first place. USchick (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User at it again with unapproved BOT activity

I previous listed user درفش کاویانی for unapproved BOT activity. He's at it again, this time creating redirects for no reason other then because one letter might be confused for another. The sole point of the redirect is so that if someone types a g instead of a k that they're redirected. Nothing else, and done for every article. It's the most ridiculous reason to create tons of redirects I've seen, combined with the fact it's obvious that some sort of BOT/Unapproved tool is being used (There where over twenty edits within the span of one minute alone that I counted) it's just aggravating. Plus he's at it again adding one line articles based on a BOT run of a census list. Also some of the edit summaries seem to plainly indicate he's using programing from DarafshBot a BOT that was indef. blocked because of errors and lack of understanding of the user. He just does not seem to get what he's doing is not correct. Caffeyw (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a Wikihounding! i cant understood reason of this discussion, i move some page into another page because they had WRONG NAME. you dont see any difference between New York and Nevo uork ?!? Haftgel is wrong name, Haftkel is true.

about creating article, i said befor'; I creat this article with a template manually.

You despondent me to editing en.wiki :( Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk) 07:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Darafsh is correct that these are not redirects, but page moves. That said, Darafsh, how are you carrying out these moves? They seem quite fast. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes i moves that, i dont creat new redirect straight. actully i dont know! i open the pages, select "Move" on top of them and click it, then replace "g" and "k", That's it. Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk) 07:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but what I was seeing where redirect pages, yes there where also page moves, but there where numerous redirect pages created. Also the issue with creates/moves is still valid. There is some sort of automatic tool/BOT being used. There's no way possible for anything else to be concluded, and even if it can't be shown it still violates the BOT policy because anything of a mass change/create should be approved before it's done. I'm sorry you think I'm hounding you, I had forgotten about you actually till I was looking at new pages and saw the same activity again. Caffeyw (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC) I should note that the original page name was kept with a redirect to the new moved page. This is why I'm calling them redirects. Caffeyw (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

So you are in wrong. i dont use any tool or BOT, i just try to make useful contributions. for redirects, i just use move in top up the pages and never use BOT or tool. i dont know how i can prove it. Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk) 08:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Even if not using a BOT the BOT policy still applies to the mass changes/adds that are being done. Add in the fact that in some of your descriptions DarafshBot's templates are being listed as used and it makes a case when combined with more then 20 edits in one minute alone. Caffeyw (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Caffeyw, why do you insist on emphasizing the word BOT every time you post? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Probably cos of WP:BOT. GiantSnowman 08:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@درفش کاویانی:, I seriously suggest you slow down right now, whether you are using a bot or not. Your mass, unexplained page moves, as well as your mass creation of borderline-notable stubs (pretty much one a minute!) could become disruptive. GiantSnowman 08:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I respect your decision and contribute slowly. but you know, im not disruptive :-) Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk) 09:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I know, that's why I'm saying it could become disruptive i.e. in the future. When moving pages, you should explain why - and you should not create so many articles in such a short space of time, it implies you are not taking time over them. GiantSnowman 09:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, i follow your recommendation. Thanks Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk) 09:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• • All I ask is an acknowledgment that regardless of if it's a BOT, a tool, or super human powers that the BOT policy still applies. Mass creates require prior approval to determine if they're wanted. Also since not an approved BOT each edit should show human interaction. (This is where I have a truly hard time since at 05:24 the user had 23 edits, which is one every 2.6 seconds) I'm happy as long as there's an acknowledgment so that if it continues, we can say he's been told twice now to stop it. Lest anyone think otherwise, I do truly believe he's working to try and better Wiki, I just think he needs to slow it down and get approvals for mass creates to ensure smooth operations of the Wiki. Caffeyw (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
    • you do realize that anyone can open multiple tabs, make the edits, and save them sequentially. the actual editing would take a normal amount of time, he's just doing multiple edits at once. not that hard. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Indeed. I once performed north of 50 edits in a minute without using any other automation than my fingers, keyboard, mouse and browser tabs. It isn't hard to do. I actually find it more efficient to operate in this way when I am doing repetitive tasks. Just because something looks like a bot doesn't make it a bot. I have no comment on the issue of the redirects/pagemoves. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I suppose the major distinction is whether these edits were done in batches, or continuously at a rate of 20+ a minute. The former doesn't rule out a bot, of course; but the latter is definitely a bot. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism at Satpal Maharaj

Please have a look at Satpal Maharaj and decide for yourself 87.123.80.100 (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• There seems to be some POV-pushing related to Prem Rawat topics. Small number of edits, not serious disruption. Warned user. jni (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks for taking action. Bito4u is again deleting content 87.123.64.43 (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for three days and blocked users Bito4u (talk · contribs), TeamAndrew (talk · contribs), and VictorWong44 (talk · contribs), as their only activity here has been to remove sourced material from this one article. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

IP editor repeatedly vandalizing Wikipedia

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

---

IP editor at 204.100.210.172 has a history of vandalizing and blanking articles since 27-August. Recommend a temporary block to prevent further vandalism.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I reported him/her at WP:AIV. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 16:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruptions from an editor with multiple IPs

• 198.189.184.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.202.210.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.130.19.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From a glance at their contributions it should be clear these IPs are from the same person, but examples of explicit connections are [297] [298] tying the first and the second, and [299] [300] [301] tying the first and the third. Geographical location also confirms it.

The first IP is currently blocked for the second time for warring at Orthomolecular medicine. This is independent of the previous incident of warring at Rupert Sheldrake which did not result in a block. Instead, a sanctions note was issued and the Sheldrake article was protected. I'm not sure why a block didn't happen in this case since it occured not long after the first block for warring at Orthomolecular medicine.

In any case since the first IP is currently on a 72 hour block, admins may view that as sufficient. I wanted to bring attention to the other IPs and the possibly unnoticed warring at Sheldrake (due to the non-block), if such circumstances warrant further action. Vzaak (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

BLP violations at Patricia Cloherty (again).

Shakespeare21 (talk · contribs)

Patricia Cloherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The history of this article is extensive so please work with me as I try to summarise it quickly. The subject requested deletion of the article last year because it had been the constant focus of BLP violations, attacks and vandalism. I and a couple of others volunteered to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and we set about removing the violations and properly sourcing as many of the claims as we could. Throughout that effort and thereafter, a single purpose account tried everything he could to retain the BLP violations and was eventually threatened with a block on 5 January this year. Four days later, a new WP:SPA showed up (Shakespeare21) and slowly started editing a related BLP. Eventually he started editing Cloherty's article. He insists that this source is "the federal testimony from the Attorney General's Office of the United States Government" when the source itself clearly says it's the "Full text of Inslaw's Rebuttal to the Bua Report". It's hosted on this professional looking site - www.copi.com. I've spent the better part of a year trying to defend this BLP from constant vandalism and slow-moving edit wars by SPA's who have an issue with the subject (and it has been protected 4 times since 2009). The quacking from the editor is obvious (it has been referred to SPI but the older account is stale) given the claims of "controversy" he is trying to insert are exactly the same as previous accounts/IPs. I'm at 2RR and he's just passed 3RR in an effort to edit-war his "controversy" claim into the article. Request more admin eyes, blocks, protection, whatever. This is getting really old. INB4 "this is a content dispute" - no, this is the continuation of a campaign to attack a BLP with just about the worst sources available because of some off-wiki drama. I'm Australian and have zero connection to the subject (though I have been accused by previous SPAs of "working" for her) other than my interest in the original AFD. Stalwart111 09:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I protected this article a while ago because of BLP violations and it's disappointing to see this happening again. Unfortunately I didn't keep it on my watchlist. The source being used is [302] which is clearly not a RS for a BLP (or probably for almost anything), and the link may be copyvio (or forged, or whatever, again not an RS for a BLP). I've reverted and may have to protect again. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

And this is his latest effort in the related BLP - using a claimed inaccuracy in one section to remove content from a different section of well-sourced (to the Wall Street Journal) but positive commentary. Stalwart111 10:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Bad edit summary and bad removal, even if the prose wasn't the best. Reducing the role played may make sense for some if its a peacock problem, but the text was a bit wordy so I am going to AGF for that particular one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the issue isn't whether the BLP needs work generally (it does), it's the sneaky removal of unrelated content. Anyway, has been undone by Dougweller with the addition of a source for the first claim and the reinstatement of the second claim and its source. The account has not edited since Doug's last warning. Stalwart111 08:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

They have now, replying to Doug on their talk. This is an extreme newbie — while they've been here since January, they've only made 17 edits — who claims to be a historian. On the good faith assumption that they're not a sock, please educate them gently about Wikipedia rules. I've written a more specific invitation to this discussion on their talk. (I've never cared for the usual template that merely says there's a discussion at ANI — not very helpful to newbies! ANI is long and confusing.) Bishonen | talk 10:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC).

I do not understand why you consider federal testimony in a federal investigation to be unreliable sources. Are you kidding? I am a historian writing a book on these topics and it appears that you have not read the sourced material thoroughly. Otherwise, you would not have deleted my updates to Wikipedia. Can you please take a moment and actually read the references that support what I am updating. For some reason, you keep reverting back to the incorrect information which ultimately makes Wikipedia useless. Regarding Inslaw, it is already referred to as the Inslaw Affair and noted as "controversial" in Wikimedia (which I am assuming is associated with Wikipedia). I have read you comment to Doug Weller and I appreciate it if you would include me in the discussion of the correct information. I am using information which is widely available on the internet and from other sources. Yes, Cloherty was involved in the controversial INSLAW affair, but there is not judgement being made. It is simply stating a fact which the business community is well aware of. She was not "a" shareholder....she was the majority shareholder which is why she is closely associated with this affair. This is a historical fact, not opinion.

Regarding Dmitriev, the source which is linked to the statement is not accurate and does not support the statement. Please read the actual source...if it does not have anything to do with the statement made, then it is not properly referenced. Please open and read the references that support the published material....they clearly have nothing to do with the statements being made in the text unless you have imagining something which I am not seeing on my computer. May you please comment on this or post the supposed Wall Street Journal reference you are referring to (because it is not on the Wikipedia page). I discovered the mistakes on Wikipedia because I am a historian writing a book on this topic and noted these errors while I was doing my researchShakespeare21 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Shakespeare21

On Patricia Cloherty, you claim to be writing a book about the subject but seem not to have read the article itself where there is no mention of "federal testimony". Instead, you offered this completely unreliable source to verify your claim (which just happens to be the same claim as other single purpose accounts have tried to spam into the article since 2009). This particular edit, I think, speaks volumes about the credibility of your claims that, 1. You are writing a book about Cloherty, and; 2. You are not a sock or meat puppet of the previous users who have tried to vandalise the article in exactly the same way. Again, I don't know if it is a language barrier but you claim to be a writer with an interest in international business and yet you don't seem to understand the grammatical dead-end in suggesting that someone is a "shareholder in an affair" (as opposed to being a shareholder in a company involved in an affair).

On Kirill Dmitriev, you made this edit which changed some text with regard to a source you have queried (fine, though a source has since been added) and removed the second paragraph of the lede and two sources along with it (the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times). I'm happy for you to query those too, but removing that section and feigning ignorance about removing a whole other paragraph isn't very convincing.

I'm happy to assume good faith but not to the point of stupidity and there are red flags all over this. You claim to be a writer but struggle with writing, you claim to understand sourcing while adding clearly dubious sources, you claim to be new but appeared 5 days after the last anti-Cloherty spammer disappeared, you claim not to have noticed your own removal of content but pro-actively reverted edits that repaired that damage, you claim to be using "information which is widely available on the internet" but have tried to include obscure (and that's being generous) sources from private websites that haven't been updated in more than a decade. Or... you could just be yet another incarnation of Happy225 (which is what your "everything marked as a minor edit" style screams - which, coincidently, you continued until I mentioned it at SPI). But hey, whatever. Stalwart111 05:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, I ask that you actually study the subject before drawing opinions. Inslaw is a Washington-based technology company of which Cloherty was the main shareholder. The incident was called "the Inslaw Affair" and a federal investigation was conducted. The conclusions of this investigation were named "the Bua Report". If you put the word "Inslaw" into Wikipedia, there is an entire section which clearly explains about Inslaw. Your comments towards me are clearly unjustified because you have not researched the topic and are you seem to be more intent on proving that you are right rather than ensuring that Wikipedia is up to date and contains accurate information. For the sake of accuracy, just state that you did not read thoroughly the material and move on. I have no idea what you are talking about on the other points but it appears to be paranoia or maybe you have issues which have nothing to do with me. And yes, I am an academic and historian who conducts thorough research and actually reads material before I start posting comments.Shakespeare21 (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Shakespeare21

Facepalm. Exactly. She is a shareholder in the company, not the affair. Which makes your edit drawing attention to the "INSLAW affair of which she was a major shareholder" either grammatically strained (at best) or bad-faith. Either way, edit-warring to keep your mistake in the article was silly. Have you actually gone back and had a look at the result of your edits you are trying to defend? Multiple people have already told you that your source (given where it was "published") is not a reliable source. And that's before we get anywhere near the fact that primary source testimony would be exactly that - a primary source, requiring original research to interpret. We'll chalk the other stuff up to a series of very, very strange coincidences, shall we? I'm done - if others want to help you edit disruptively in a BLP, I'll not stand in their way. Stalwart111 09:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Stalwart111 for finally agreeing with my pointsShakespeare21 (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Shakespeare21

If you really think that is what I was doing with the above comment then there's likely nothing anyone can do to help you. Stalwart111 23:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates and User:Medeis

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 the discussion about whether the current shooting incident in the USA should be posted, I posted an "Oppose" - at the time, the death toll was four. It has since been revised upwards to twelve (and I have struck my comment, as this is clearly not a commonplace workplace shooting, which it appeared to be at the time).

Despite this, User:Medeis has made more than one comment accusing myself and other editors of racism. After I struck their original comment as a clear RPA, they have again posted, saying "I said the comments were racist, not that editors were racist", but then followed by "If we have a better term than racist for this I would be happy to hear it". This is utterly unacceptable. I posted in good faith on this discussion, and I am absolutely furious at being accused of this - editors that know my worldview and the articles I patrol will know why. Could someone apply a measure of clue to this editor, making it clear that their comments are not acceptable? (and I would be appreciative if their latest claim that I am a racist was struck as well). Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

RPA'd comment. NE Ent 23:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I made no claim any editor was racist. I said that claims such as "Yet another mass shooting in America", and "Another week, another US shooting" are despicable racism. Arguments that somehow Americans are killers and attacks on them should be expected (or whatever these editors are implying) are against the guidlelines of ITN which tell us not to comment about connections of events with only one country, and personally offensive. I am quite happy with the references to Americans being struck if my comments are to be struck. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

'American' is not a race, by any definition I have seen... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Anti-American Bigotry, whatever. I define racism as making collective moral judgments about people due to where they are born. I've removed the references to nationality and hatted the side discussion. diff. I have no problem with people redacting my comments within the hat if they have a further problem. μηδείς (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

So, what would Medeis write in her oppose comment if someone were to nominate a suicide bomb attack in Baghdad in which 5 people are killed? Count Iblis (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You removed "in America" and "US" as "RPA", seriously? I don't think that was the appropriate response either, Medeis. (If it matters, I'm an American.) LadyofShalott 00:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Are you baiting me, Iblis? I suggest an admin close this, there's no ongoing dispute. And yes, LoS, I think that's a simple solution when ITN guidelines explicitly tell us not to refer to an event being associated with just one country. μηδείς (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Medeis should not remove these comments. People must be able to make assessments like that, just like in my hypothetical example above, for Iraqi standards 5 people killed in an attack isn't a notable event because of the huge levels of violence there. People must be free to make that judgement and post that without being accused of racism, bigotry or whatever. Count Iblis (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Yet another mass shooting in America" is not racist or bigoted: saying so is, forgive me please, pretty dumb. Mass shootings are common in America, it's a sad truth. I have no idea what you're referring to with a guideline etc, but "personal attack" is silly. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• I have reverted the redaction. I have no opinion on the hatting, but it was a package deal. Medeis may find the comments sad, or callous, or dismissive, but they're not personal attacks on anything or anyone. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oh well. Medeis thinks that we should all stay out of it; it's a private matter of some sort? and their redaction is an attempt at a solution? Or they've gone off the deep end in their Stamping Out Of Racism At ITN. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The reversal has been reversed. I would hope Medeis will not edit war over this. LadyofShalott 02:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Now, Medeis was proposing a quid pro quo of sorts--the comments remain redacted and in turn they would redact their comments. Well, I don't accept such a QPQ and I am in agreement with Black Kite. Indeed, I offered three thesaurus items above from which Medeis is free to pick one: the racism claim needs to be taken back, without wishy-washing (we've seen too much of that recently). Drmies (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
      • For clarity, I was not the one did the revesal - I was going to, but was beaten to it. I just don't remember that editor's name. LadyofShalott 02:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
        • I did it. Just in case the thing snowballs while I am offline, I'll defend myself now. There was consensus here that the comments relating to the US did not constitute racism, bigotry or personal attacks. The context of an event is relevant to ITN, and no editor has the right to individually censor or remove comments which directly relate to the context of an event, which the two comments Medeis {{RPA}}'d did. I would also point out that a source in the ITN nomination, from a mainstream US media outlet, comments on the frequency of mass shootings and directly quotes the president talking about the issue (For Americans, yet ‘another mass shooting’ NBC). —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 02:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
          • I was reverted literally as I posted here (it initially seemed that the issue was resolved; clearly not...) I undid due to the consensus here, pointed Medeis in this direction, and will make no further edits to ITNC. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 03:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
            • I have been reverted yet again (I presume that Medeis has broken 3RR at this point). I find Medeis's liberal attitude to playing the race card and to censoring other people's comments to be sickening. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 03:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
              • Correction: there's nothing "liberal" about that, WFC. It's a lot of other things, but not that. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies: I don't think he means "liberal" in the political sense, -- tariqabjotu 03:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A poor choice of words. A lot of people I know are "liberals", and they are wonderful people. I meant liberal as in "doing those things a lot". —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 03:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked Medeis 24 hours for edit warring. I also put it back to the version that says America and US. LadyofShalott 03:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

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

User study?

I was very surprised when this popped up on my watchlist on the WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting page; on checking, the same thing had been posted to WP:WikiProject Spam. I reverted them on the basis that this doesn't belong on a WP:-space page (WT:-space would be another matter), but thought I'd ping here to see if this is something that's been through the process and somebody just put it on the wrong page, or if there's something else going on here, seeing as the user named in the postings has made no edits other than a one-line bio on his userpage... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

More of these posts, on proper WT:-space pages now... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Just seen a post at WP:FOOTY. GiantSnowman 10:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've left Maggie Dennis a talk page note requesting she verify this isn't WMF approved, but it doesn't feel like it is. WKmaster posted his proposal a long time ago on meta (and got no response) so this seems much more like a lack of communication than intentionally malicious. NE Ent 10:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If this becomes a problem, then perhaps it should be taken up at meta (linked to within the posted text). -- Trevj (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, User:NE Ent. :) I'm checking with the individual and with the research committee to see if approval has been granted for subject recruitment. In the meantime, I have removed all of the invitations that I see. I'll help restore them if it turns out that this was a communication snafu and the project is approved. I suspect you're quite right that this may be confusion. He set up the page on Meta, but I don't see any sign that the research committee responded - I'm not sure if he emailed the link. I have linked him to m:Research:Subject_recruitment in case. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that s/he has been the sole editor of that meta page. -- Trevj (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I am on the Research Committee, and I can not recollect this being approved. We normally do not approve mass edits by IP. It would be good to double-chack with the editor though.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocking of Keeler4586

Hi, I am requesting that user Keeler4586 be blocked as he/she is devoted to promoting products, and is recreating deleted articles minutes after speedy deletion as can be seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keeler4586 . Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have contacted the user with a gentler message than an immediate block. Perhaps it might be best to wait and see if the gentler message is heeded prior to taking the blunt object action. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Neo ^ and Armenians in Cyprus

User:Neo ^ has some severe WP:OWN issues with Armenians in Cyprus, and I was at least the third editor to point out ownership issues, to then be dismissed rudely out of hand, as more recently User:Cplakidas was also treated. Apparently we the unwashed masses do not know near as much about WPMOS and POV as does User:Neo ^.

I came to the article as an interesting topic with which I have some connection. It was and is awash in unnecessary bolding, filled with claims to "famous" and "well-known" personages who do not have a Wikipedia article, and chock full of POV. The term "Osmanian occupation", aside from being the wrong demonym in English, is a loaded term.

I cleaned up some of the more obvious problems, but they were reverted by User:Neo ^. User:Cplakidas cleaned it up and was likewise treated.

On the article's talkpage, I first calmly explained that "unfortunately", "famous" and other such buzzwords are POV and have no place in an encyclopedia. It escalated, I dropped it but watch the article for more evidence of such behavior.

The article really needs a good hard looking over by an MOS expert at least.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, holy image overload Batman. And that bibliography? Listing every book ever published about Armenians in Cyprus or remotely connected is not a bibliography. And looking at the talk page, yes there is a serious ownership and tone issue with Neo ^ on there. A lot of that article needs culled, not moved elsewhere but culled. The majority isn't even remotely referenced. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Just having a fresh look tonight, try cognates of heroic, historic and unsurpassed in the thing.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I have been offended by the epressions the first user used against me. I am not that familiar with Wikipedia's policies, however I did not revert the changes, I merely changed back - some of them. The attempt is to include all relevant information. Maybe my tone was not liked by some people, but then again you should have seen the expressions used when mentioning me. Neo ^ (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"not that familiar with Wikipedia's policies"? Then you should watch your tone with other editors who are familiar with them, and again shame on you for being here 7 years and remaining "not that familiar with Wikipedia's policies".--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

And, yes, they should take a look at the discussion page, and see who went in guns blazing-you-as seems to be your habit. A quick read of your edit summaries with other users makes that abundantly clear.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So I though I would add to this discussion a bit, let's try to keep calm no need to get angry Kintetsubuffalo. I've been aware of the of the shenanigans that have been going on in Armenians in Cyprus for some time. I thought since Neo put so much time and effort into expanding the page, that the information could be... hmmmmm how can I put this salvaged, then at a later date streamlined. As evident in the talk page I tried to come to some sort of compromises with Neo. Lets just say it would have been easier to get water from a rock. It's one thing for a user to be unaware of Wikipedia's guidelines and rules, making unintentional mistakes, I've done it plenty of times in the past. If you go to the talk page it very evident that Neo has been well informed, especially about WP:SIZERULE and WP:OWN. Every time I try to work these things out, Neo slowly goes back and reverts everything, like a child putting his hand into the cookie jar when he thinks no one is looking. I think I have been very patient with Neo, with all fairness, I truly believe Neo has good intentions. The fact of the matter is, that the page need some serious damage control, it definitely has problems with size and language used, at times seems a bit POV. Seric2 15:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"Shame on you", "watch your tone" and other expressions do show who has got a real problem with tone, and this is not me... I firmly believe that the basic information should remain when there are other main pages (e.g. education, church and monuments), that is why I am compromising there. However, the timeline or other sections - the information of which cannot be found anywhere else - should remain. And I do believe that I am not reverting things, I am merely editing.Neo ^ (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

And another thing: you cannot imagine how much time I have devoted to accumulating and preserving this information. It is such a pity to lose this, just because the article has attracted unwanted attention... Neo ^ (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

How are you "compromising"? Seric2 is exactly right about you, "Neo slowly goes back and reverts everything, like a child putting his hand into the cookie jar when he thinks no one is looking." You're loading the article with POV crap again, when the above editors say the article needs culled.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Neo, it doesn't matter how much time you have devoted, if WP:CONSENSUS is that the stuff you have added is inappropriate, out it goes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The hits with Neo just keep on coming, "I am not reverting things, I am merely editing" editing things back to the way they were? To be frank I've been here before. It wouldn't surprise me if a year, two or even three years down the line were back to square one with Neo making "additions" or "touch-ups" to the page. Now that we are on the topic, I was wondering if we could perhaps come to some sort of permanent solution. Now I'm not exactly filled with ideas, I was hoping for some kind of permanent solution, so we don't have to come back to the same problem year, after year, after year. Knowing Neo and his track record it's not hard to imagine this being the case. Seric2 13:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I am not adding crap. What I did was selectively add back some of the information that was there in the first place. Only some of the information, the most important one.Neo ^ (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Armenians in Cyprus problem

Hello. I am Neo_^, for whom many have been heard, unfortunately.

I was told the bibliography section was very large, so we deleted the unpublished articles, the photographic albums and the (auto)biographies.

Then, I was told that - because there are the articles on Armenian education in Cyprus, Armenian religion in Cyprus#Places of worship and Armenian monuments in Cyprus, I should add some of the information there, so as not to repeat what is on that articles, which is what I did, very selectively (only a small paragraph for each item).

Then, some others started undoing my additions, without viewing them. How can someone help me?Neo ^ (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have blocked Neo ^ for 24 hours (as a standard 3RR block), after his recent edits that were four identical massive blanket reverts within one hour (not counting the several partial restorations he did earlier, which would probably also have counted as contentious reverts). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This needs more eyes, I've unfortunately now gotten involved and can't be impartial any more from a blocking etc perspective. I've warned Neo ^ about edit warring and people are trying to explain things to him on the talk page but he isn't listening. The main crux of the issue is the user seems to think that Wikipedia should contain everything there is about Armenians in Cyprus from family emblems, to every organization and building related in any way, and a big issue is about photos of every building and seemingly every single member of the community. Canterbury Tail talk 16:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There is more than one way to get more eyes on this. Neo ^ was just blocked again. 72 hours this time. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 23:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ottawa Catholic School Board IP 24.114.29.254

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

---

24.114.29.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - I happen to be at this IP address, in the school board it is registered to. This vandalism WILL NOT STOP. High school students are idiots. I recommend permanently blocking this IP now. For further information read my comment on their talk page. Frogging101 (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Materialscientist blocked for two weeks. You might also ping your IT office and have them dig into the timing of edits - might be able to figure out who did them and give that poor kid a scare. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Heh, unfortunately I don't think that will be possible; the IP is registered to the entire school board, not just one school. This is well over 30 000 students, and that is why I think this IP should be blocked ASAP. Frogging101 (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Some post-close trolling...

Catholic school you say? Think this ol' template might help?

Taking "putting the fear of God into them" to a new level. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express

Just a quick note that there have been some real strange goings off on the Suburban Express talk page. If you scroll down to the end, you'll see that a number of editors on an external forum are discussing vandalising an article, or at least blocking any edits made by people they don't like. I'll be honest it seems one of those users is me. I'm not very active on the page currently, but wanted to bring this to someone's attention. Also if anyone is to lock the article, I'd suggest they make changes to the article as it has currently had a number of quality references removed and had what is effectively slander reposted through reverts. Verdict78 (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the article is locked already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erpert (talk • contribs) 08:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive promotion

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.

---

• Billboarder22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sylfronia King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ariel de Lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboarder22 is here to promote Sean Guerrier de Bey and entities related to de Bey. All of BB's edits revolve around that. Even more telling than BB's contributions are his deleted contributions. One of them is SmartWay Music Management, which supposedly was founded by De Bey and by Sylfronia King. Their "distributor" is World Live Music & Distribution, which was created by BB in 2010, deleted, recreated, and recently deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Live Music & Distribution (2nd nomination). Take a look at this Smartway page, which offers to create pages at Wikipedia and notes King Phaze (related to de Bey), the World Live Music page, the de Lion page, and Tots TV (as far as I know unrelated to BB and de Bey). The other company supposedly founded by de Bey that you see a lot is Reug Vision, another of BB's deleted pages.

As for edits to articles that are not de Bey-related, there are only a few:

• [303]. This one added King Phaze, also known as Jonathan Rivera, who in 2010 did a few edits to the King Phaze article as User:Jonathanrivera.
• [304]. This shows BB moving de Bey up in the list. An IP had earlier added de Bey. The IP's contributions are telling.
• [305]. This shows BB adding Camryn Howard, another of his deleted articles, to the list of associated acts.

There are at least a few other named accounts that have been involved: User:Seandebey whose only contributions have been deleted and hasn't edited since September 2010; User:Poetry cow, whose only edits have been to de Lion (except one) and last edited on July 24, 2013. Poetry created the de Lion article and in its first iteration included de Bey, World Live Music, and King Phaze.

One thing that's important is many of the mentions of de Bey in the articles are either unsourced, or the provided sources do not support the material. For example, BB created Jenn Bocian in January 2013. Putting aside the incredibly promotional tone at the outset, it had the following sentence: "Her record company is also working close with record executive Sean Guerrier De Bey and Reug Vision for the purpose of marketing & promotions for future projects." The source was Boucian's own website. I don't know what it said back then, but currently it doesn't appear to say that, although the link is to the home page, and it might be buried somewhere. In the de Lion article, I removed today the mention of World Live Music as the blog source never mentioned it. Another editor removed the unsupported reference to de Bey.

I could provide more evidence, but this is already too long.

I propose an indefinite block of Billboarder22 for being here only to promote, and for doing so in a disruptive (often misleading and unsupported) manner.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support Another example is this edit, in which BB adds Sean Guerrier De Bey to the list of notable music executives, alongside Irving Azoff, Jimmy Iovine, Clive Davis, David Geffen et al. There's more, but I'll follow Bbb23's lead and leave it at that; there's already ample reason to support an indefinite block of Billboarder22.JSFarman (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC) .
•  Done Anything else? Drmies (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Use of Wikipedia Logo by SmartWay

When I came across this section I had a look at " this Smartway page", as linked above and was concerned that they are using the Wikipedia logo on a page promoting paid editing "standard page $499"(!) Surely this is a breach of the applicable terms of use of that logo? I had a look at wmf:Trademark Policy and it seems that without permission they are breaching the Foundations trademark.©®™ 220 of ^Borg 01:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The Smartway page clearly conveys the impression that their service is in someway approved by the WMF. This issue is best referred to the Foundation's legal department. See Wikipedia:Contact us. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I have just sent an email to the email address listed at the contact us page. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 02:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, except for Tots TV. all the pages listed in that advertisement as sample of their work have now been deleted, so it isn't a very effective advertisement any more. Still, this is an instance of misuse that would I think warrant action. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks guys. Hope Jimbo gives 'em a good 'kick up the Khyber'. Concur that that page is a poor advert, very sucky layout too.® 220 of ^Borg 13:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

I made some constructive minor copyedits to 't Nonnetje which were twice reverted with bad faith (and clearly false) edit summaries such as [306]. We're getting into 3RR territory now. I explained my edits to him on his talk page but he deleted my post with the edit summary "pityfull timewasters". I most certainly have not introduced errors or degraded the article and I feel that it is unacceptable for him to say this. We have a recent history with The Dorchester article in which I criticized him for his inappropriate tagging, but he thinks I'm picking on him in return now which isn't true. The edits I made were not damaging in anyway but simply improved the quality of prose. He has since left a nasty message on my talk page [307] accusing me of POV pushing and being "the most pityfull editor on wikipedia".♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think I'm on friendly terms with both editors, and am trying not to step on anyone's toes--but Banner, there is no need for that. I can't see what the mistake is that Dr. Blofeld supposedly introduced, but this "pitiful" stuff, come on. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It wasn't the best of copyedits :S I fixed it up a little bit. But, yeh, rather an overreaction! --Errant ^(chat!) 14:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, well I was just focusing on the rewording of the parts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be some form of reverse psychology. If it makes him feel better, sure, I'm a pitiful editor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Could may be just a breakdown in translations? Jat. Basket _Feudalist 14:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it would be a translation of "zielig", a wonderful word, but just as inappropriate. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I wish it was, but sadly this isn't the case. He seems to think I'm the most dreadful, unreasonable most "pityfull" editor on here who is at war with him. Actually I appreciate the work he does on restaurants (even if I'd prefer it if he tried to make them start class) and simply made some minor copyedits to his new articles in good faith. If I'd wanted to be nasty I'd have slopped tons of tags over them and degraded his work in edit summaries. And it's not as if I can amicably confront him...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, [308] The Banner talk 15:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

On the talk page he says to Errant "Please keep in mind that the stray capitals and strange sentences are not my work, but work from another editor. He prefers to edit war over it, so let him be happy with his mess. The Banner talk 13:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Another blatant lie. The proof is there that Head chef was capitalized when he started the article, yet he claims that it was "my mess". Frankly I find such false claims and belligerent behaviour disturbing, and if he really has a history of overreacting to everything like this I'm surprised that he hasn't been officially cautioned by now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think now you've overreacted there :) because "Head chef" was correctly capitalised in his version, and your c/e introduced the problem. Not that I'm defending his stance, it's easy to do when your tidying up sentence structure (and your reads better), done it loads of times myself. Just sayin' Maybe just both of you disengage for a bit --Errant ^(chat!) 15:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I see, indirectly because I added "The" Head chef before it and it was originally the start of the new sentence. But I didn't introduce the capital letter.. It's very minor stuff though isn't it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The truth is that it is more common to have a capital in the first word of a sentence. The truth is also that you started checking and tagging my articles after my tagging of The Dorchester on which you replied with: I've removed your invalid and rather bad faith tags from the Dorchester Hotel article which is still in the process of being expanded. Did you even bother to read the article? Shall I tag Four Seasons Hotel Dublin for the same reason, it has about the same level of "coi, peacock, advertising" as you put it. To my opinion, 100% revenge.

And finally, I had already moved on, Dr. Blofeld clearly not. So he popped up on two of my newest articles. Let me make it clear: I don't like the style of response of Dr. Blofeld so I try to avoid him. The Banner talk 15:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Er, no, it was to prove my point that I certainly wouldn't tag the Dublin hotel article even though it had the same level of COI or "peacock" in it. I think the language barrier is such that you don't really understand sarcasm and misinterpret a lot of things, I've noticed the same thing from a lot of other non native English speaking editors on here, although Drmies who I believe is also a native Dutch speaker certainly appears to have a 100% fluent grasp of English and its perks. You'd get a much sweeter response if you stopped running about the site Banner making OTT edits and comments about people. Your very first edit on the Dorchester amounted to excessive tag spamming which was not done in the spirit of wikipedia. You dismissed my initial message to you as telling me I was making a "joke of myself" or something to that effect..You persisted with comments like this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Aggressive tagging of seven of my articles within an hour is also against the spirits of Wikipedia. And an edit like this only proved to me that you was looking for revenge. I don't want to spend time on that game. The Banner talk 15:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I created Template:Expand ref for the very reason that all articles with no publisher or source details should be filled out in details and I never visit an article which has expand ref requirements without leaving it. Yes, it is true that I came across your articles on your user page, but if the articles I visited had sourcing like your current ones I would not have tagged them at all (even though I could pick holes in them if I wanted to and question the quality; we're not a restaurant directory). So don't think that you've been victimized over it, but your sourcing does have issues on a lot of the articles you've listed on your user page and unlike yourself I don't add tags to articles without a very good reason. If I was to truly be "seeking revenge" I'd put half of your restaurants up for AFD and plaster unwarranted tags over them and leave scathing edit summaries. It just isn't my style, I hold no grudges, and my recent edits have not been in any way an attack as your perceive them to be. And I've rewarded you in the past for your efforts to improve restaurant coverage and still continue to support your efforts in doing so, although in light of what you've done I really don't think you deserve to be rewarded from myself and am surprised that you still continue to value an award from a "pitiful editor".♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• My articles, Banner? I thought the articles were everyone's? I was mildly involved at the Dorchester article, with Banner being aggressive in his reverting and approach. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"My articles" as in written by me and for which I feel a special responsibility to watch over them. The Banner talk 16:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps you two could agree to stay away from each other, and each others' articles, for a few days. Tag bombing the Dorchester was uncool. Retaliating on 7 of The Banner's articles was uncool. Complaining about aggressive tagging when you just did it yourself is uncool. "Taking back" a barnstar was kind of uncool. Name calling is uncool. You two don't seem to be able to edit constructively together right now, so maybe editing on different articles would be good.--Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. The Banner talk 16:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure exactly how I I retaliated Floq. I even improved the sourcing on a few of them by filling them out and added some content like this. And tag bombing with Advert, COI, Peacock etc is hardly exactly the same as adding a single expand ref template in the referencing section like Arbutus Lodge. Have you looked at the sourcing of a lot of the articles on his user page? Could I have completely avoided his articles? Yes. But I wouldn't be acting appropriately if I visited an article and didn't make an effort to try to get the sourcing to be improved. Visit Arbutus Lodge for instance, isn't it obvious that the references need filling out with basic publisher and title details? How is it aggressive tagging so apply a ref fill in the references section? I do this regularly on any article, whoever the author is, and I once made a request to get a bot to try to apply them to all articles and fill them out. That's constructive not destructive. Believe me, if I was retaliating I'd have put them up for AFD and applied COI tags to them, especially Martijn Kajuiter. As I say I have no issues with him, but if he's going to revert good faith edits to his articles and accuses me of things which aren't true, then I don't take too kindly to it. I could quite happily improve some of his articles on restaurants and enjoy doing so as hotels and restaurants interest me, so to avoid editing his articles just because he can't accept myself I think is a bit extreme. I'm quite capable of working with most people, but it requires mutual respect..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Banner has called me a "lazy cow", and has been uncivil to myself on multiple occasions. I can list examples when I get to a computer. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Looking back over your talk page editing history he did seem to make an extreme number of TFD spam messages back in June. All I know is that he comes across as a rather extreme editor and I don't think it is healthy to operate like this on wikipedia, but it's pretty common. I'm surprised that he's never been officially warned or blocked for making such remarks or for spamming people warnings.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget to tell about the topic ban you got due to the "quality" of your work on templates last May. User_talk:Jax_0677/Archive_7#Topic_ban_enacted The Banner talk 17:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get too sidetracked here or indicate that this is a "let's grill Banner" thread. But I am concerned Banner with some of your edits in articles and behaviour following them which seem like overreactions, especially your perception of my edits on this article which really were intended to be constructive. I feel certain you've done this sort of thing before and will continue to do so again. I think it basically comes down to AGF, and you'd find that if you treat an editor such as myself with respect instead of "pitiful" you'd find that I'd reflect it back at you and things would run a lot a smoother. I'm not sure what it would take to indicate to you that I do not have malicious intent towards you, but some of your edit summaries and comments today do nothing to improve things for you on here. As I say I'm interested in restaurant articles and would be willing to work on a restaurant you consider important and show to you that I'm not the sort of character and editor that you think I am and can be quite reasonable and constructive if the atmosphere isn't hostile.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

What's with the inverts on "quality" Banner? Looking at the diffs provided above, you come across as quite an odious person. Your reverts on Blofeld were conducted in bad faith and he was correct in bringing this to ANI. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The quality issues were about the work of Jax, not about Blofeld. The Banner talk 18:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply -

1. I'm not going to beat the dead Topic Ban horse to death again (water under the bridge now), as the Topic Ban limits what I say here. My quality has improved dramatically, and The Banner has on numerous occasions used XfD as cleanup for topics with ample information.
2. Here is the example of The Banner calling me a "lazy cow" and making an inflammatory comment:
   User_talk:The_Banner/Archives/2013/June#Waiting_for_improvement_as_incomplete.
3. Here is the example of The Banner about to call me "[Stupid]":
   Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_16#Template:University_of_Northern_Iowa --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems to come down to a distinct lack of respect and AGF to others I think. He appears to have some sort of natural resentment of people in general or fails to see that others are often acting in good faith.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think the above statement by Dr. Blofeld is an accurate summary. Over at least the past two years, The Banner (formerly The Night of the Big Wind) has demonstrated very aggressive commenting in discussions, especially all those related to the notability of schools, and has not heeded even the many, most polite requests to moderate his tone. He does not appear to realise that his manner of collaboration will not gain traction for his arguments, and at best will be largely ignored. His failure to gain consensus has also led him to mount campaigns of mass nominations at AfD in attempts to prove his point. I fail to understand why a user who is so concerned for the quality of our articles can take pleasure in being so unpleasant. Due to the apparent inability to understand the comments of others and reacting with indignation, I am inclined to believe that there may be a linguistic issue because many users' comments are taken out of context, and replied to impolitely and with gross inaccuracy. I have occasionally considered filing an RFC/U, but refrained each time from doing so in the hope that his interactions with others would improve. As far as I can recall, I have never threatened them with any admin action. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply - The Banner has used my talk page here to vent days after a topic ban prohibiting me from resolving the issue was imposed. I have tried to explain that when mistakes are made over a long period of time, that once they are found, correcting those mistakes can be a large undertaking, and that the reality is that we are where we are. Nevertheless, I received another message here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You do seem to have created rather a lot of templates that have since been deleted. Whether or not you have tried to rectify this or whether or not you are under a topic ban from addressing the situation is not something I have looked into. Nevertheless, I see that The Banner resorts to his characteristic caustic comments, which reinforces the fact that what Dr. Blofeld has reported here is only the tip of the iceberg. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure how this became a discussion of Banner vs Jax 0677. As someone involved in Jax's topic ban, and someone who monitored both Jax and Banner for quite some time after that topic ban was enabled, I think I should comment on that aspect. After Jax's topic ban, Banner did a lot of clean-up of the mess that Jax refused to do themself. This meant a heck of a lot of TFD's, thankfully. When asked rather point blank questions, Jax uncivilly stonewalled regularly - "my topic ban won't let me discuss where I hid that template" kind of stuff, followed by "unless I have permission from the WMF, I won't tell you", which was infurating to say the least. Just as we rely on serial copyrightviolators to help, we tried to rely on Jax to help as well - but flat-out refused. Indeed, they should have been indeffed at that time. However, Banner did a yoeman's job cleaning up a crapload of Jax's poor work considering the circumstances. Yeah, I know for a fact that Banner was rather pissed off at Jax's behaviour - and yeah, "lazy cow" was inappropriate no matter how well-deserved it was...not a blockable offense, and certainly not necessarily unexpected ES&L 11:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)