Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive830

Pigsonthewing and BLP

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

---

I am concerned with Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) and his view of BLP. He has been creating a whole heap of unreferenced BLPs, examples include Csaba Sógor, Franck Proust and María Muñiz de Urquiza. All three articles are now referenced - but the references have been added by other users. Pigsonthewing seems to be on some kind of mission to churn out as many of these poor, BLP-violating articles as possible, and I view his editing pattern in this regard as disruptive as he seems to be expecting others to clean up after him. Despite me raising the matter at his talk page 48 hours ago, he continues, with the latest, on Salvatore Caronna, containing one 'reference' so poor that it is basically unreferenced. As a minor issue, you will also note many of the articles containing basic formatting errors, further evidencing that Pigsonthewing shows little care for the articles he is creating. My request for him to add a basic reference (something as simple as a bare URL link to an online biography) to the article before clicking 'save' does not seem onerous. GiantSnowman 17:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• For such an experienced Wikipedian, these actions are very troubling. I think the creations are linked to a message on his userpage; "I am working on the European Parliament project over the next five days and shall have limited opportunity to edit here." My guess is that he is just churning these out and intending to come and fix them later, but that doesn't sit well with BLP at all. I've read his comments in his talk page discussion, and this is incredibly concerning; it's an atrocious response to a genuine concern, and shows a tremendous lack of interest in following policy. I wonder if Pigsonthewing has ever read WP:BLP? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• I have a tremendously low opinion of unsourced articles (I am in favor of deleting them immediately, regardless of subject matter), and an even lower opinion of people that create unsourced articles (with the caveat that if the creator has only been here for a week, they might not know better). Now that he is aware that users consider this a problem, and now that we know that he doesn't intend on handling the issue constructively, I recommend that Pigsonthewing be blocked for disruption if he creates another unsourced BLP article. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• I wouldn't create something like this but to call it a BLP violation is putting it a bit strongly; the first two Google hits confirm. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • While not a "violation violation", the fact is that all new BLP articles are required to be sourced, full stop; while in that particular article's case you could say it's technically sourced, the other three linked in the OP don't even have that and would be instantly - and justifiably - {{Blpprod}}ded. While I can understand Andy's desire to have all European MPs bluelinked - and we should - creating substubs like that is...inexplicable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's an important requirement they be sourced and concerning her is not taking the time to do so. Looking through it's probably best to merge these all into a list, as most don't appear to have anything else worth saying (i.e. a biography) and parroting a self-written bio is probably not a good idea. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• The project is Wiki Loves Parliaments / European Parliament:

"We now have the opportunity to visit the European Parliament in Strasbourg in February and perform a photography and editing project for the 764 MEPs there. In particular as the next elections for the European Parliament are upcoming in May, these new articles and photos are under a strong focus of the public."

If these articles are going to be "a strong focus of the public", the public isn't going to get much information from these sub-stubs. But maybe the MEPs who are up for re-election (or their aides) will nip in and fill them out? The prospect of getting their own articles in Wikipedia before the elections may have helped spur the MEPs to grant access for this project. Nothing wrong with that per se, but surely the requirement isn't to create an article literally within 30 minutes of taking the MEP's picture as was the case here? I don't understand the rush. Voceditenore (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how this post is actionable. Certainly you can't be calling for administrative sanctions against someone for creating stub BLPs? If you see one floating out there without references, prod it and it will be deleted per policy. My impression is that these are being created with high likelihood that they will be fleshed out in the short term. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• It is utterly inappropriate to create a whole host of unreferenced super-stub BLPs. This is not a complaint about "stub BLPs" (these are one-liners), and there are far more than just one being created without references. For such an experienced Wikipedian (one with 110k edits at least), this is completely inexcusable, as his response to the case has been. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• From an established user creating articles in this type of condition is unacceptable. They are fully aware of our policies and a view to come back to them simply isn't good enough, should be left until they have the time to do it properly. And the part of the reply by him saying Your alternative is to not be a dick is entirely uncalled for and certainly doesn't address the clear issues here.Blethering Scot 20:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ah well. Those stubs are really not good and very disappointing--but it can be argued that we're better off with them (I'm not saying I subscribe to that argument). The initial question about them was fair, and then stuff goes downhill, with a bit of support from "helpers" on both sides. Andy calls Snowman a dick, Snowman goes to ANI. But try as I might I cannot find where our BLP policy forbids a BLP without sources from being created in the first place. (That a sourceless BLP can be prodded doesn't mean a sourceless BLP cannot stay.) So no measure will be taken against Andy, and unfortunately his stub creations and the subsequent overreaction (this very thread--sorry, GS) is just one more unpleasant experience for all involved. Best thing to do for all involved editors is to turn some of those articles into DYKs; that's the only thing that will make you feel better. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but to say this is a "overreaction" is unfair, numerous editors seem to share my concern about this editor's lack of regard for BLP. GiantSnowman 11:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Giant Snowman and count me as another concerned editor. If you create a series of unreferenced BLP's and you have 110k edits, you are way out of line. I don't care what policy or lack of it says, common sense in my view says it is just selfish, and the name calling by Pigsonthewing compounds the attitude problem. As far as editor and admin action on this issue, since it appears to be ongoing, I'd be willing to look at a ban on new BLP's for Pigsonthewing as a remedial step. I further find it troubling that there has been no response here. I'd call it gaming the system. This all approaches a protective block, as I see it. Jusdafax 12:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would support an indefinite topic ban on the creation of all new BLPs, to remain in place until such time as Pigsonthewing can understand they fully understand the policy and the problem. GiantSnowman 12:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

While it's not quite the "Paris is the capital of France" quintessential wiki-example, saying in The Age of Google "María Muñiz de Urquiza is a member of the European parliament" (EP) is pretty darn close. Has Andy falsely accused anyone not a member of EP as being one? I'll quote part of WP:BLP: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." (emphasis original). Is Muñiz de Urquiza's membership in EP actually being challenged? NE Ent 12:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• However that ignores the fact that all BLP articles must have one reliable source, it also ignores his questionable reaction to being brought up on it. Someone with his longstanding should clearly know better on both counts. Their is no need or urgency to create these articles in this state.Blethering Scot 12:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• "all BLP articles must have one reliable source" -- wp:blp says that where, exactly? NE Ent 13:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with NE Ent at 12:46. Cut Andy some slack here. He's a very busy, highly experienced contributor, who generates very solid material -- as well as launching initiatives like WP:WikiVIP, which really caught the media imagination.

Currently he's trying to get a lot of stuff done in the European Parliament, as well as give a good impression of WP to some important opinion makers. Can we please therefore show a bit of trust in an editor with a long and excellent track record, and leave him to get on with what he's doing. If there are still problems in a week, then by all means we can come back to it. There's a lot he will be aiming to do in a very short period of time with this EU Parliament outreach, in a foreign country with contacts he needs to make and build as he goes along. So let's get out of his way. However stubby these articles may be in their initial transient state, there is every reason to be confident they are likely to evolve rapidly, and long-term issues are unlikely. Jheald (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me add that Snowman's objection to Salvatore Caronna was paricularly absurd. The guy is an MEP, so clearly notable; and, while the article was only a micro-stub, its content was sourced by the reference given. If you're introducing Wiki to a group of people, a stub like this can be exactly what you need as a baseline, to then show the article growth process (as well as giving a basic active URL that's then in place for any automated or semi-automated tools you may be then using).

Again, Pigsonthewing is a very experienced editor, doing (yet again) important outreach work. So let's give him some trust, and the chance to get on with it. Jheald (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but to even remotely compare the widespreadness of the knowledge of an MEP's name/role to Paris being the capital of France is utterly absurd. Almost everyone knows that Paris is the capital of France. Many people, myself included, have absolutely no idea who these people are, and there is absolutely no excuse for creating an unreferenced BLP, because it takes 10 seconds to dump in an unformatted reference, thus negating the problem. If you don't have enough time to reference a BLP, then either create it in userspace, or do not create it at all. I cannot fathom how any of you are defending these actions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• He's is an experienced editor thats the point. There is no reason whatsoever that an experienced editor should be creating articles in this state, time is no excuse. We have userspace and afc for a reason nor is the European Parliament project an excuse that these should be rushed into article space. Personally i would support a topic ban as he clearly has no sense of wrong about creating articles of a living person in this state and is intent on ignoring that policy. His reply to GS and further ones on his talk page were also highly uncalled for.Blethering Scot 18:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• If ya'll want to make up a rule that no unsourced BLP articles can be created, start an RFC. But as of today, there is no such rule. NE Ent 22:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has no rules, and you know that full well, Ent. You also know that it is inappropriate for any user to create an unreferenced BLP; that's the whole reason BLPPROD exists, after all. It is excusable for a newbie who doesn't have any grasp of policy. It is categorically inexcusable for an editor of 110k edits, let alone one whose initial response is "Your alternative is to not be a dick". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Pigsonthewing has dismissed our concerns as nonsense. GiantSnowman 13:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Uuuuuuuuurgh. Guys, there's a significant difference between random drive-by editors creating single-line articles on Brazilians who may or may not have played professional football (watching those BLPs is a hell of a task, and one which those responsible should be thanked for) and project ambassadors (with years of experience) creating them as part of a hands-on attempt to get more editors involved in the project. This isn't some sort of breaching experiment designed to break down our rules on BLPs: quite the opposite. Nonetheless, Andy is (as one of our most public editors) someone who should be setting an example, and it would be unfortunate if those very editors he's attempting to encourage ended up getting rapidly batted for creating their own unsourced BLPs. I'll have a word. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Which he has since removed without a response. GiantSnowman 18:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you helping? Is this helping? Is it making your proposed topic ban more likely? If I didn't know all the actors involved here my eyes would certainly have rolled out of their sockets already. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Pigsonthewing's refusal to deal with the matter in a constructive way helping? No, it's making it worse if anything as it appears that he doesn't give a damn. Also what topic ban? Another editor mentioned one, I said I would support it - that's it. There has been no formal proposal. GiantSnowman 12:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that he cares rather more about the root of the matter (improving our biographies) than the (quite bafflingly, in this case) naive onlooker might assume. I do think you're correct that he has no interest at all in being chided by random admins for small-scale pseudo-infractions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Chris, your position is incredibly confusing. You chide Pigsonthewing for creating unsourced BLPs in your first comment, and then seem to be suggesting it is all OK in that one? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

And I told someone else off for asking him not to, and then did it myself. The inconsistency is truly baffling, so long as one completely ignores the provided rationale. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The creation of new unreferenced BLPs is not a "psuedo-infraction". Creating articles that will be instantly and rightfully PRODded, per policy is not improving the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, well, sure, but we also heard in this thread that we have no rules. For once (ha!) I'm in perfect agreement with Thumperward: sure, Andy should do a better job; even pasting in a bare URL is something already. At the same time, the ones I looked at didn't take more than a second to verify, so they're not controversial or whatever, even if they're not on Paris. Good old Dr. Blofeld used to get this kind of criticism leveled at him, and I think they've taken that to heart. Andy could do that too (@Pigsonthewing:), but taking administrative action is going too far, IMO. Andy, do these guys a favor and just dump in a link or two, OK? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is this past its sell by date thread still going on? Look, here's an Andy creation from yesterday, complete with a URL in the very first edit. WP:BLP doesn't require a reference from uncontroversial boilerplate, and WP:BLPPROD give editors seven days to source the articles, and kind of says if you prod instead of finding obvious sources you're being a bit of a dweeb. If we want the policy to be "source the article on creation rule" make the policy proposal via the civil channels rather than harangue Andy into submission route. NE Ent 04:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Because Andy has failed, and consistently failed, to even acknowledge that there is a problem. If he had done so immediately, rather than calling GiantSnowman a dick, then it wouldn't have ended up here in the first place. If you're acting as an ambassador for Wikipedia, then there is no excuse for creating unreferenced BLPs. None whatsoever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Lets take the facts. Pigsonthewing said on 2/6/14: "I will be working at the European parliament for the next five days and will have limited editing privileges." It is now 2/17/14, has he changed and/or improved any of his articles? Yes, only a couple, but yes. So the idea that he wanted to create articles that he would improve later would not be so far fetched. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Recommend closure as cooperating: Recent edits show sources added 14 Feb 2014 (see: dif-125), so I would close this report as "cooperating" and consider the slow response as an issue of "too busy" or overwhelmed by work with the "764" members of the European Parliament 2014. Watch user contribs and perhaps contact users to help update any overlooked pages of a busy user, as prior pages have improved. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support closure as cooperating per User:Wikid77. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Before blocking, please note this BLP as created by Jimbo Wales, after admin deletion for being unreferenced. It's a sad world where something that the person who came up with the idea for the site did now gets you block proposals. --GRuban (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@GRuban: Firstly, I don't see how an edit by a different editor over EIGHT years ago has any bearing on this discussion? Secondly, who is calling for a block? A topic ban was (very briefly) mentioned a long time ago, but that's it... GiantSnowman 19:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Requesting review

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

---

Requesting a review of a block on user User:NinaGreen. This editor was indeffed by User:Jehochman for "spam". There is a discussion at Jehochman's talk page. I don't see a policy basis for this block, or where there was any warning given. —Neotarf (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Spam isn't the right term. Disruption is though and that's a policy reason to block. I wouldn't have done it indef, myself. But the user needs to back off. They are too invested in the discussion and are disrupting progress.--v/r - TP 03:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not spam in the Spam (electronic) sense: it's spam in the Spam (gaming) sense. Jehochman is saying that stuff like this, repeated on lots of users' talk pages, is disruptive and reasonably close to chat spamming. Note that the block message says Your account is blocked until you...Please take a break, regain perspective, then make a request to be unblocked Clearly Jehochman's not assuming that this will be an interminable block; he's saying "You're blocked until things improve, and then you should ask to be unblocked". Spam (electronic) should be reverted/removed from pages because advertisements for offwiki things are never appropriate, but Spam (gaming), when done like this, is basically a kind of improper canvassing. We don't remove messages just because they were left in a canvassed manner. Finally, everything I'm saying assumes that Jehochman is correct/justified in this decision. Not having investigated, I'm not convinced either way; I'm just trying to ensure that Jehochman's words aren't misinterpreted or misapplied. Nyttend (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• The action of NinaGreen is unacceptable and I was going to leave her a message myself until I saw that they had not only been blocked, but this ANI case had been opened. However, IMO the block is impetuous and punitive. The user should have been engaged in discussion first and accorded an opportunity to respond. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• The block is justified for disruptive conduct. Looking at the contributions of NinaGreen, it is clear that they are filling pages after pages with their idiosyncratic views about the arbitration process, thereby disrupting and preventing discussion of these issues by others, including after arbitrators asked them to stop. This is an adequate warning, which in any case is not necessary for ordinary blocks. I assume that Jehochman will lift the block as soon as NinaGreen confirms convincingly that they will no longer disrupt discussions.  Sandstein  08:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Sandstein, providing additional background. Perhaps the block is justified after all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• To be honest I was at the point of making this same call (indef block for pointy and disruptive edits after warning) myself. Frankly I have grave problems with editors using that page (or this one) to rehash their personal dislike of ArbCom, its decisions, or AE actions. It is unacceptable and the fact that single purpose throw-away *** accounts[1] are now being used to disrupt that page does not help Nina's case one bit--Cailil ^talk 10:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• I find it rather worrying that Neotarf, who was also told to back away from this review for the same sort of problematic contributions, has raised this review. In any case, I agree with the comments above that this block is well-founded (and probably overdue). AGK [•] 11:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Incredibly obviously a valid, reasonable block ES&L 12:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Good block, unfortunately. The actual incident mentioned in the block rationale is only the last straw as regards NinaGreen's recent disruption. Indeed I see signs that she's moving towards the levels of her historical disruption, which was nuclear and as of today never acknowledged by herself. One such sign is this ANI thread. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC).

• Is it time for a community ban? Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Nina has done excellent work developing articles, and I don't think a ban is needed. However, there are clearly areas where she has a blind spot and something is needed so the next outbreak can be handled more quickly. A weakness in procedures is that there is no way of issuing a light-weight and flexible topic ban, but that is what is needed—a mini-discretionary-sanction regime where admins could warn and prevent posts of undue size or frequency or repetition. That's too hard to organize so I would suggest leaving a remedy for a later time, if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Such a sanction could be imposed & enforced via the community with Nina--Cailil ^talk 12:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see any need for a community ban at this point. Nina is indefinitely blocked, and iff she's able to convince an admin that she'll edit constructively going forward, she'll be unblocked; isn't that a perfectly good situation? Always assuming that the hypothetical unblocking admin makes themselves master of the background re what Johnuniq calls her blind-spot areas first, but that I will assume. Also, having a community ban discussion when the user is blocked and can't take part isn't a very attractive proposition. (Unblocking her for the purpose of taking part, now that she's wound up, is frankly not attractive either, and I don't think it would be doing her any favor.) Bishonen | talk 16:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

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

User:Zero0000 reported by User:PLNR (Result: )

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.

---

Page: United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Summary

@Zero0000, has reverted[2] my edit[3] on the specious pretext that it is "editing against consensus".

The article is part of an arbitration case. The content of this edit has been "discussed" extensively on talk page (most recently here), On numerous occasions I have requested that WP:RS would be provided to support the assertion that providing specific details of this tangentially related subject, are WP:DUE in the context of THIS article\subsection. No WP:RS have been provided to support it, only claims that it is and Synth through WP:RS showing that it is relevant to the the tangentially related subject, the Peel Plan, which is obvious and where it is covered.(additionally, introduction of cherry picked details here introduce issues of WP:NPOV)

Since no policy based arguments were provided, productive discussion didn't took place and the editors supporting those details has very long editing history within the scope of this arbitration case, I have requested DRN[4] for un-involved supervision. Again no WP:RS and no participation.

User:Zero0000, revert under the pretext of "consensus" of involved editors, is misleading (there is no consensus), and is nothing but POV pushing and coatrack decoration, ignoring long process of attempt to resolve this, that resulted in no policy based argument i support of inclusion or any compromise. This process of "jerking off"(sorry for the bluntness, but it is, its more than 50K of the same thing) is not conductive toward normal editorial process and only promote editing warring.

I request that either Zero0000 be warned or the issue of policy vs "consensus" be addressed, thanks. --PLNR (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by Zero0000

This is a content dispute that does not belong on this board. However, now that it is here, I'll describe the situation.

A commission in 1937 proposed a partition of Palestine. The earlier text (for quite a while) said there were "provisions for the relocation of both Arab and Jewish populations to areas outside the borders of the new states". This was a severe violation of NPOV, since the proposed population movement was almost entirely (over 99.4%) in one direction. However, PLNR has single-mindedly refused to allow this distortion to be corrected. The discussion starts at Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine#1937 Peel Commission transfer and keeps coming back in later sections due to PLNR's obsession. First he claimed the primary source doesn't have the numbers (it does), then that there were no secondary sources (two were provided and one added to the article), then that the detail wasn't important (who can imagine). It can be seen that although a few people thought the population movement should be completely removed, nobody supported PLNR's desire to present it in a grossly misleading fashion. I have no time for this sort of wilful misleading of readers. Zero^talk 10:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by PLNR.

This not a content dispute, this about policy and POV pushing. Unless Zero can produce WP:RS that will show that those details are WP:DUE in the context of the UN Plan.(not Peel Plan)

I already covered the context and notability of the issue at hand in the DRN summary [5]. As for what Zero linked, it is the prelude or the beginning of the game of sources. First he added[6] cherry picked sentence from a primary source to "clarify" the plan, with something that in his words "Quite a lot of authors don't even mention"(which is correct, i never seen those details mention in the context of UN plan, however, they are covered in the Peel plan analysis) my argument that question of "balance" should be addressed in the context of the full Peel report, and not implied through a direct quote, from primary source, of a select clause, of one of the recommendations and without proper context(which introduce POV issue), while going into the Peel plan details is undue. It was ignored by claiming the holly grail of WP:RS.

I tried to compromise [7] by providing a more concise overview of all the Peel Plan recommendations, without undue details which had no impact on the UN plan and introduce POV issues. However, the specific numbers were reintroduced, this time claiming the disproportion of the plan has to be mentioned( I requested WP:RS that sate that conclusion about the plan to avoid WP:SYN), claiming that "exchange" in "it proposed that land and population "exchanges" should be carried out ..." implies 'roughly equal exchange' and thus must be explained(I suggested replacing it with a synonymous term like "transfer") and because he preferred "more precise" account(I argued WP:UNDUE, requesting anything to support that inclusion of Peel Plan details is in the context of the UN plan), no they wanted the full quote per WP:RS.

Finally, after I moved to remove due lack of WP:RS supporting the SYN, a WP:RS was dug up which provided the conclusion that was thought out from the start, to present why the Arab rejected the plan. Which is fine, however, instead of simply concise version of it, they insisted to include a full quote and exposition presenting the Arab POV in full details (which is exactly what happened before with another paragraph, in which WP:RS was dug up of undue event to push a point of view inside direct quotes.

I tried to reach a comprise, I tried DRN, and I am tired of this charade and tendentious editing. I wish a simple policy based issue be addressed here. The validity of the inclusion of those details Zero added, without WP:RS which would show that they are DUE in the context of the UN plan\background section.--PLNR (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by Zero0000

PLNR's response is exceedingly deceptive. The fact, I'll state again, is that in 1937 a massive (220,000) forced transfer of Arabs was proposed together with a tiny (1,200) transfer of Jews. Writing the text as if the transfer was balanced is a lie. All of PLNR's energy expended on this, including this "report", is because PLNR wants Wikipedia to tell that lie. You can see this is a fact by looking at the edit he claims (above) is a "compromise": Proposing that land and population exchanges be carried out to overcome demarcation problems. As you can see, the essential nature of the "exchange" is completely hidden.

Above we see him trying to deceive this board as well. On the talk page I wrote "Quite a lot of authors don't even mention that a tiny fraction (0.55%) of the transferred persons would be Jews and describe it just as a transfer of Arabs." Above he quotes just "Quite a lot of authors don't even mention" in order to trick people here into thinking I said that the massive imbalance of the "exchange" is often not mentioned. Apparently PLNR thinks that telling the truth is UNDUE.

Note that we are talking about two paragraphs of background in a long article (75K). The paragraphs are about the rise and fall of the most prominent previous partition proposal (the only other one which had a chance of being implemented). The relevance of the essential features of the proposal is blindingly obvious and PLNR can pick up practically any book on the Arab-Israeli conflict and see them discussed in this context. I mentioned two such books early in the discussion.

As Dlv999 wrote on the talk page after PLNR had kept on about it for almost a week, "PLNR, you seem to be in a minority of one on this issue." Normal editors would have moved on, but not PLNR. He also tried DRN, with no success. Now he is trying to get rid of the opposition by making false claims about them. A topic ban is in order. Zero^talk 01:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, in case someone might like to accuse me of edit-warring over this topic: after the first edit on Jan 25 I have only edited the article 3 times, twice to add new sourced content, and only once to revert PLNR's revert. Zero^talk 03:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by PLNR.

What I want( and policy demand) is simple, instead of assertion about consensus or what is blindingly obvious to you, that you WP:RS that show that those details are WP:DUE in context of the UN plan\background, not for the Peel Plan, nor for your damn conflict. ( Also I have tried DRN, to get uninvolved editor supervision and direction, not sure how it is a con on my part. But speaking of topic bans, I have edit on this article and all related commissions and several events in chronological order, addressing all aspects of it that as I read, you however, stuck on inserting single point of view, addressing what you refer to as "lies")--PLNR (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by Zero0000

Regarding the clause I struck out above: I just realised that it was PLNR who introduced the problem in the first place, by changing "Arab population" to "both Arab and Jewish populations", claiming to be following Peel Commission. But even though other article has those words, in the same section it clarifies that the "exchange" was almost all in one direction. So PLNR did not correctly report what the other article said but only imported a misleading fraction of it. I'm happy to believe this was an honest editing error, but the problems started when PLNR refused to admit there was a problem and refused to accept a second sentence from the other article to correct the problem.

There is no rule that a reliable source state must explicitly state that some detail is relevant as background to the topic of the article. It is enough that a reliable source treats the detail as relevant background for the topic. But that is not the issue here anyway. Either we omit the Peel plan from the article or we present it accurately. There is no third option. Zero^talk 09:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• I have edited the posts above to remove excessive HTML, formatting, and section headers. AGK [•] 11:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• It seems like this would be best raised at WP:AE as a request for enforcement of WP:ARBPIA. AGK [•] 11:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the Html, I wrote the post in the edit warring noticeboard, but then I noticed it was narrowly defined as WP:1RR or WP:3RR. Also I didn't use WP:AE because I had no idea what clause I need to cite there.--PLNR (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course you haven't, because there has been absolutely no breach (by Zero, at least) of any ARBPIA clauses. This is a simple content dispute, requiring no admin involvement and certainly no AE action. RolandR (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification, however, I believe that tendentious editing is in the preview of this board. Since we have several editors with long history on this arbitration case, whose contribution are focused on promoting a single point of view, which I find to gives undue weight to sources and or positions, through tangentially related subjects, usually by dumping full sentences/quotes/detail (no summaries or regard to the section coverage as a whole)

I request that the question of whether this is POV-pushing should be addressed here. Either by Zero providing WP:RS that will show that those full details from the tangentially related subject, are WP:DUE in the context of THIS article\subsection or remove it. Otherwise, you set the stage for WP:COATRACK, driving away responsible editors who so far have been trying to make a concise neutral summary of the events, into same edit practice as above. I doubt that multiplying the size of the background section with recycled meaningless details would improve it. --PLNR (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Also I just noticed that you are not an admin, and from your talk page it doesn't seem as if you are uninvolved.--PLNR (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• If it is decided that this issue can't be addressed here, I'd appreciate advice as to where this issue can be addressed.--PLNR (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Btw, this case gained some meat, and might seem too much or undesirable to address within this framework, I'd like to emphasize my request in the previous paragraph, that it all comes down to policy based argument to show if those details are WP:DUE in the context of the UN plan\background section or not.--PLNR (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest, as per User:AGK that an AE report be made against PLNR. While sttrictly speaking this is a content dispute, the evidence on the talk page shows a strong consensus against PLNR, an obstinacy in insisting against most editors he is right, and the result now is an attempt to admonish one of the several editors in that consensus. No argument given here by PLNR makes sense, in policy, or even in terms of RS (I could supply half a dozen further sources linking the Peel Commission's suggestion to Zionist deliberations throughout the 40s to the 1947 Partition Plan and its aftermath. It is therefore a behavioural problem (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) (WP:CONSENSUS) and WP:AGF (Zero is 'jerking off', per above) that has become vexatious and taken on the form of a needless harassment.Nishidani (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You are right Zero was the straw that broke the the camel back, after a long process, which culminated in a DRN. On the constructive side, if you can provide "half a dozen" sources, please do, it what I asked for above (i.e. provide a policy base argument that those details are WP:DUE or remove them). But please no rehash of strawmen arguments, the notability of that select clause in the context of the Peel Plan is known and never been questioned(which is where it is covered with the rest of the clauses). So no mining for Peel WP:RS, please show that those details are notable\DUE in the context of the UN plan\background section. Show me a source that in a couple page concise summary of the UN plan background during the Mandate period, that mentioned those details in full, especially when the next sentence already summarize them as "unequal population exchange", when they have no impact and overall this point of view covered in far more detail than every detail which is mention in every single plan summary.

Which is reason I setup the DRN, so we can get some input from people who aren't heavily involved in "your" case, to address this issue i.e. if it is WP:COATRACK decorating, with sole goal of furthering one point of view in as much detail and color as they can. So we can finally work on providing a concise summary of the topic as whole, providing the read with links to WP:RS and specific topics which cover those subjects in full (WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE) --PLNR (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, persistence in not understanding. There is no policy dictating the specifics of what is or is not due. The policy is interpreted and applied according to consensus, and the consensus there finds no objection to the specific figures, which are in any case a corrective to your desire to cancel out precisely what was at stake in the population transfer. No one except you seems to object to that edit, and therefore persisting in forumshopping to have your way against a consensus is patent obstructionism of the kind that warrants administrative attention. Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment @PLNR: it seems that you have decided that all contributors editing the articles of the I-P conflict are pov-pushers and you are in conflict with all of us. Maybe I am an exception but I am not even sure. You should really cool down and practice WP:AGF. The main issue from my point of view is that you seem not to have read a lot on the topic. You use sources that you can find on the internet; most often primary ones and that makes you write or support mistakes or partial facts. My mind is that if you improve both these problem, you could become an interesting contributors because I have the feeling that you are clearly "neutral" on the topic, which it is not often the case. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

PLNR is not alone. Zero0000 (and Pluto2012[8]) has indeed unjustifiably deleted content from articles and engaged in edit wars countless times while violating many of Wikipedia's policies, as he systematically deleted and reverted artcle versions he didn't want to be seen. I can easily provide many examples of diffs to demonstrate this, but instead I want to point out something much more serious:

Zero0000 has already been warned it the past about 3RR and edit warring violations, as found in his talk page history here User talk:Zero0000#Edit warring warning, and here at User talk:Zero0000#3RR Warning for Deir Yassin massacre. I'm sure there are other similar warnings he removed which I just wasn't able to find, but these are clearly more than enough to make a case against Zero0000 and demand that he be blocked for at least a certain period of time, after being revoked of his administrator status of course, which I just cannot understand how is still has. -Shalom11111 (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a joke. The best Shalom11111 can find on me is an accidental 3RR violation in 2006 (for which I blocked myself for 24 hours) and a completely farcical "warning" from a NoCal100 sock in 2009. For the record, I also accidentally violated 3RR once in 2009. Given that I edit continuously in the most war-prone part of Wikipedia, almost 5 years with no violations at all is unusually good. Zero^talk 15:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Zero0000 is being modest. He's been a contributor for almost 12 years & if you haven't heard of him before this, it's because he's managed to be a useful contributor without being a problem. Not a bad record. -- llywrch (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment So what we have is a case of a user creating a problem, which he did also disclose, and refusing to accept why that wording is not acceptable. That settles the thing. Furthermore, the fact that he misrepresented what Zero0000 wrote about the authors mention is troubling too. But I am not surprised by this. In a discussion for some days ago, PLNR said that I "ignored his main question". In that same reply, he had simultaneously bolded what he saw as his "main question" to make it look to others that this claim was true. To the next time, I hope you disclose everything and be honest with what others have written. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I have some distrust in the correctness of anything User:PLNR says since at Talk:Subdistricts_of_Mandatory_Palestine#Redundant.3F, he said "Yes I see that you and the other guy who voted, recently went on create stubs rampage", which is, as IRISZOOM pointed out a false claim ("Check the facts before making false claims. They were created for several years ago."). I am in some disagreement with User:IRISZOOM and User:Zero0000 too, but I have no single problem with anything what correctness of their claims concerns. Androoox (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Sock (or meat) puppetry and a COI agenda on a suite of articles

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.

---

• Creative factor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Corporate cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Nutshell: I'm looking at what seems transparently a major COI issue from what is either a pair of meatpuppets or a sock group. I need help determining the best steps forward.

User:Creative factor is a new account pursuing an old agenda - removing negative content from JS Group (stuff like this). (We've dealt for years with either a series of obvious corporate employees or one persistent one.) When that failed, he narrowed his focus to a specific section on the company's CEO (see Talk:JS_Group#Deletion). Accordingly, with reasonable concerns, the content on the controversy was moved to a new article on said CEO. Immediately, User:Corporate cat appeared to try to have it removed - first through requesting deletion and then through targeted excision, removing not only the controversy but also reference to the subject's sister, whom he says the subject has disowned. He also immediately began working on articles related to a JS Group rival (seriously), copy-pasting content from the company's own publications to shoehorn in allegations about its CEO (the same issue which Creative factor had objected to at JS Group). Today, Creative factor visited the article Jahangir Siddiqui which Corporate cat has been whitewashing and pulled the same content - not only the material related to the lawsuit, but reference to Siddiqui's sister. He also uploaded a (now deleted) copyvio image for the article Aqeel Karim Dhedhi, which Creative factor has been working and recreated today after its deletion earlier. (History has now been restored.) He used the picture Creative factor uploaded.

Given the timing of edits, this may be more meat puppetry than sockpuppetry, but I am not as experienced in evaluating SPIs as I am copyright issues. Regardless of SPI, I note, the COI is massive and transparent. There is a tandem goal to clean up after one company and slur its rival - the goal is not "to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia" but to advance the interests of his/their employer - perhaps in retaliation for the alleged behavior I linked above? (link again)

I've just blocked User:Creative factor temporarily for persisting in blanking content, but I think a more workable solution needs to be reached. I'm not sure what that would be - perhaps block the newer account (Corporate cat) and impose a topic ban on Creative factor limiting him to the talk pages of articles related to JS Group and its rival? Whatever we do, it is entirely reasonable to expect that new accounts will block up to continue this agenda. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to block each and every account that's involved in this, as Moonriddengirl says, they're not here to build a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, even if they're managing, just, to skirt around policies that would actually get them blocked quickly. It might be useful for the community to agree to discretionary sanctions for these articles, so that users coming to the project in future can be informed of the sanctions, warned if they engage in such behaviour and then blocked if they continue. Just a bit easier that coming here time and time again, as I've a feeling this is going to run and run no matter what happens here today. Nick (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And do it begins. :/ [9]. The first blatant sock trying to force its way. Nick, I agree with you - this is going to keep happening. Discretionary sanctions might be the best way forward. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

ARBCOM has already authorized Discretionary Sanctions for all articles related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and I guess this one also comes under that scope. -- SMS ^Talk 16:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, since it's not nationalism, racism or religious preference being pushed here. This is plain and simple corporate rivalry. :/ However, I have now blocked User:Corporate cat as I found that he has since I filed this reuploaded several files that User:Creative factor had, including one "self-made" picture of JS Group's primary rival as "self made" with a source of "the news". As far as I'm concerned, this is the nail in the coffin for sock puppetry. Another sock was also blocked (User:Violent cat). I've tried to neutralized the articles involved and semi-protected those related to the rival company AKD Group - I created the most basic of stubs there as a target for redirect. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is Creative factor blocked only 60 hours? I thought that abusive sockpuppetry warranted a longer or an indefinite block. Epicgenius (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It does, Epicgenius. :) I had blocked him for 60 hours for disruption before I realized the scale of what was happening here, and since he was blocked for 5 2.5 days figured there was time to arrive at some approach in discussion here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Moonriddengirl. Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Single-purpose account

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

---

Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account. The only article this user has been editing is Hayazn, where he is constantly making changes without discussion. By the way, I'm also worried that the username is innapropriate. It says "Armen MAH". Mah means "death" in Armenian and as long as I know, one of the leading members of this organization is named Armen Mkrtchyan.[10] There might be a connection here. --Երևանցի ^talk 15:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Yerevantsi: Thanks for addressing. The editor seems to be enforcing. He has got like 4 reverts. Suspicious indeed. OccultZone (Talk) 16:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yerevantsi, perhaps you can make that user name point more explicit, and report it at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The username per se is not my prime concern. I just think there might be a connection, because this user is clearly registered for trashing that one article. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I just registered an account over at Armenian wikipedia and I'm mainly editing there, so I'm sorry if I don't seem more involved here, although my intention is to stick around and edit some of the Armenian articles. If my username seems inappropriate, I will change it, although MAH is part of my initials and any resemblance to members of Hayazn is purely coincidental.

Regarding the article. Hayazn is an organization that claims to be a party but is not registered as such. Hayazn is also a very controversial entity, they are constantly in the news because their members beat-up LGBT activists, or members of some other opposition groups and that is how they got my attention in the first place.

Yerevantsi, who has been in contact from one of the leaders of Hayaznand has been editing on his behalf (I'm not sure about privacy rules here, can I link to a social network accounts with the same username?) has assumed ownership of the article and won't let me make any changes to it. He deletes any negative information from the article and refuses to compromise. I have been very open to discussion in the articles discussion page and you are all welcome to read it yourselves and see how he stonewalls the discussion.

Here is my added sourced information compared to the one Yerevanci keeps reverting to. I have added the same information to the Armenian version of this article and the regulars there were nothing short of welcoming it. --Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

To address the username issue quickly, WP:IU is the part of the username policy that advises that you should avoid usernames that are offensive or disruptive. Even if you didn't intend such disruption, if your username could be misinterpreted in such a way that it can cause disruption you should give serious consideration to changing it. This is for your own good; consider that if your username implies something negative about you, that could color the opinion of other editors in such a way that they may automatically assume ill-intent when you don't mean any. If you want to voluntarily change your name, it's a fairly easy process, just visit WP:CHU/S and make a request. -- Atama頭 18:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like the user name is problematic, at least not to English speakers who don't speak Armenian. Is it problematic in Armenian? Epicgenius (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It can mean "death". But as I said it's purely coincidental, it's actually part of my initials and I will change it if it's a problem. I would like to take this opportunity and bring your attention to the article in question, Hayazn. The users who reported me, removed all of my additions, reported me to you and are now ignoring the discussion page. --Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

So, it's been 6 days since my additions (that were aimed at making the Hayazn article neutral) were removed and I was reported here. I have made several suggestion and attempts for a dialogue in the discussion page and Yerevanci ignored them completely. What do administrators of Wikipedia suggest that I do? --Armen Mah (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is to continue the discussion on the talk page of the article. There's really no action that requires administration here, this is a content dispute and we have dispute resolution methods that may help resolve the issue. You've already had third party opinions on the talk page, so if you can't reach a consensus in what seems like a reasonable amount of time you might consider a request for comments to get more input from other editors. But again, I think there's nothing that can be resolved here at ANI. -- Atama頭 18:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

That's my point, there is no discussion. Everything that I added was removed and I was reported here. He is happy with the current biased version of the article, I'm not. What happens if I make any changes and he reports me again? I have spent the last few days reading the rules and as far as I can tell this report against me was in ill fate, but I would like to avoid any further escalation of this conflict. --Armen Mah (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

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

IP User user_talk:94.10.214.103 and User user_talk:Ellisa2000

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.

---

Both a user at the IP address user_talk:94.10.214.103 and the user user_talk:Ellisa2000 have been making consistent unsourced edits to religion articles. Both have received repeated warnings.

In particular, IP User_talk:94.10.214.103 changed the membership numbers without updating the listed source on the Catholic Church article three times, once after being warned on his talk page:

• Unsourced edit to Catholic Church on 13 Feb 2014: [[11]]
• Warning on talk page on 2 Feb 2014: [[12]]
• Unsourced edit to Catholic Church on 01 Feb 2014: [[13]]
• Unsourced edit to Catholic Church on 01 Feb 2014: [[14]]

The user has made several other unsourced edits on other pages about religion that are documented on his talk page.

Additionally, user user_talk:Ellisa2000 has made very similar edits to the membership on numbers on the Catholic Church page and to several similar pages to pages on religion. I don't know if they are linked or not.

• Unsourced edit to Catholic Church on 11 Feb 2014: [[15]]

I only have first hand knowledge regarding the edits to the Catholic Church article. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I've left warning notices on both talk pages and have had to check back over old edits by the IP user in order to manually revert changes to content unobserved by later contributors.

IP user 94.10.214.103 began playing around with statistics 9 January 2014, while Ellisa2000 began and ended 11 February 2014. While both appear to have tinkered with random pages, there distinct overlaps in the pages and remarkably similar types of changes made on Religion in India, Religion in Serbia, Religion in Montenegro, Religion in Spain, Religion in Bulgaria and Religion in Seychelles. Currently, the IP user has been blocked for 48 hours by HJ Mitchell, while user Ellisa2000 appears to have stopped 'contributing' (for the moment, at least). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Another block needed. Please note that, since the 48 hour block on 94.10.214.103 was lifted, the user has resumed their activities. I'm not certain as to whether I should post this directly to the vandalism board in view of the fact that the IP and registered user have been reported here as possibly being one and the same person. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC) EDIT Yup, I've been a nincompoop. That's what happens when you chase down notifications that are a couple of days old. Apologies. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ellisa2000 is definitely back to the same tricks. I've just rolled back a few entries. Could someone please block this user? There's no point in a pageful of threats to block without affirmative action. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• If they are the same user, why is the IP user blocked, but the named account isn't? Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea. I didn't actually submit this report. I assume that Zfish118 suspected they were socks? This isn't how I would have chosen to report the incidents, but this is how they ended up being reported. I haven't had any feedback from anyone, so I don't know who chose to block one and not the other, or whether it's being investigated as a sock. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you. --Epicgenius (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't necessarily believe it is a sock puppet per se, but perhaps an inexperienced editor who is sometimes logged in, sometimes not. The two accounts are making nearly identical disruptive edits to the same group of articles. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

As a P.S. - I don't know why this was considered as being ANI material (a bit of an overreaction). Both the registered user and the IP are irritating vandals who happen to have chosen religious stats as an easy target. Whether they're the same person, a tag team or just coincidentally merging on a few pages, neither have made a peep. Short term blocks and keeping an eye on their activities after the blocks seems sufficient. If they start acting up again, it should just go through the same process until they're permanently blocked (if it comes to that). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a less intense place to report such vandalism? --Zfish118 (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Both 94.10.214.103 and Ellisa2000 are making dozens of disruptive edits as of 15 Feb 2014. --Zfish118 (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

In answer to your first comment, Zfish118, I would have chosen to take them to WP:AIV. That being said, they are back to their old tricks and none of the administrators here seemed to have followed up on a complaint lodged 3 days ago.

Thanks! I edited the vandalism policy page to add link to WP:AIV, as it only said to report persistent vandalism to the Admins, but not where... --Zfish118 (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Please, can someone block them as both Zfish118 and I have been spending unnecessary time tracking and reverting their edits - which never met the most basic of AGF criteria - and leaving warning after warning on their talk pages. Do we take this to AIV, or is someone going to respond to us here? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Please close this AN/I. Have taken it to AIV as should have been done in the first instance. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If They will not stop and apologize, then I think it is time to Propose a Ban (Time Limit Negotiable) for disruptive behavior and teach them that their disruptive editing WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.They have been given plenty of warnings and pleanty of chanses to turn their behavior around. All of you are trying to peacefully solve this (Which is good), but now I think it has crossed a line into a point where we need to impose some kind of action to block their disruptive editing. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Anything that can be done about these Mikemikev IPs?

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.

---

123.214.175.236 (talk · contribs) and 118.219.86.100 (talk · contribs) are obvious Mikemikev socks, but as the IP addresses are so different I'm guessing a range block is inappropriate? I can sp the talk page but that seems a shame. I've just been attacked as pro-Semitic on one page and an Arab supremacist on another, so I must be doing something right. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah they look to big to me (both /16 for a major South Korean ISP), semi protection looks like the only option as I can't see a common trend we could use for an edit filter. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

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

74.89.85.38

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.

---

74.89.85.38 keeps on adding lists of programs to Nickelodeon articles that are unsourced. I looked at the websites and many of them aren't even there. Wikipedia is not a television guide. I have warned him about it, yet they keep on doing it. Please block this user. Finealt (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The IP has shown no activity for the last few days, so maybe they've stopped. If their previous editing pattern stays consistent, they'll probably be gone for a month or more. If you notice their behavior starting up again (adding unsourced info) then a block may be warranted, though it's difficult to know how effective it will be since this editor usually edits for one day then "hibernates" for at least a month before starting up again, so they might not even notice the short block usually handed out to IPs with a clean block log. Then again, this IP has shown a consistent focus on the kind of content they've edited since November 2012 (and never edited prior to that time) so this is likely a static IP that has been used by the same editor for years. A long(-ish) block may against this IP may have minimal collateral damage. But since blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and the editor has stopped for now, a block wouldn't be appropriate at this time. -- Atama頭 16:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Deleting old user pages

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 used to be User:Sam Korn, but can't remember the password for the account or for the associated email address. I had my old user page deleted a couple of years ago, but I'd really like to get rid of all the other pages in my old userspace. Since they show up in an internet search, I'd really like to get rid of them. Could some kind soul possibly delete them for me? Many thanks. A later Sam (451) (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sam, long time. I excavated your 2006 e-mail address from an old arbitration committee page and tried to contact you that way, but it turned out to have been disabled. :-( I guess I shouldn't delete those pages without some kind of confirmation that you're you. Any ideas? Can you tell me something you and I would both remember, say from IRC? Bishonen | talk 20:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen: it is indeed a long time. Thank you for replying to me. The best I can think of is that I do have access to my old mailing list address, which sent many emails still available in public archive. If you emailed that address, I could reply. A later Sam (451) (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I removed some details from your post above, no need to leave them out in public. I believe you — I'll delete the pages tomorrow — just falling into bed here. Bishonen | talk 23:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

• Greetings, little user! Blast from past! bishzilla _ROARR!! 14:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

Suggestion: While I'm sure B or friends will delete the pages you requested in short order, I think you get more complete exclusion from internet search via Wikipedia:Courtesy_vanishing. NE Ent 14:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Once the pages in question have been deleted, their URLs can be submitted to Google Webmaster Tools to remove Google's cached copies as well. — Scott • talk 16:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• User space pages (and their talk pages) have been deleted. I didn't delete the user talk page archives, since they contain the talk page history and policy frowns on that. But I blanked them, and protected your talk page. Let me know if there is anything else. You were before my time, Sam, but I run across your name from time to time, and it looks like back in the day you helped out a lot. Thanks for that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. I'm not terribly worried about it. It's just that there were some very odd results in the first page of a Google search for my name and I'm happier now they're gone. Thanks to everyone for your help. A later Sam (451) (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia.Georgemoney.net?

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.

---

Help! Whenever I try to search anything, this is the address that appears in my address bar. Luckily, My parental controls blocks this, but it does get annoying. TitusFox 08:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Run a virus scan, immediately. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Scan Complete, Nothing! As I said above, Parental Controls Block everything but Wikipedia, so how could I get infected? - TitusFox 12:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, No More Georgemoney! But It may have a DoS Attack Soon if it's Harmful! :) TitusFox 12:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Hounding

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

---

Hello, I am a newbie who is being victimized and hounded by a patroller. I have found the last few days rather harrowing and have been given medication to help me sleep. Please somebody look into this matter for me. The name of the patroller is Siteku. All attempts to talk ends up in ridicule at my inexperience. The article in question is Cecil Jay Roberts. Thank youCowhen1966 (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC) If I am not mistaken, he has even put my article up for deletion. Please help!Cowhen1966 (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

From everything I can see, User:Sintaku has been extremely polite and helpful in trying to guide you. DP 17:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Sintaku's motive was to help me I do not dispute that. Maybe Sintaku needs to put the appropriate boxes on new articles rather than putting a standard box on a new article whether it merits it or not. The article does not have issues with tone, grammar etc. it does have sources, they are not poorly sourced and there are no issues with notability. I understand his job is to patrol new articles but he should also take the time to read the article before tagging it with incorrect templatesCowhen1966 (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: You most certainly should not have moved that "article" into articlespace from the AFC holding pen. It shouldn't be live whatsoever DP 17:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that was not moved with any bad motives. Again, it's me trying to find my way around Wikipedia. Please do not assume the worst! Good faith and all that?Cowhen1966 (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Concur with DangerousPanda regarding Sinkatu. I'm sorry that you've found the experience stressful. Wikipedia has evolved policies over the years to ensure quality articles that frequently seem harsh to newcomers, and Sinkatu has just been trying to explain those to you. It may be the case that editing Wikipedia isn't a hobby that you're going to be able to enjoy; if it's affecting your health, it's definitely not worth it. NE Ent 17:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution but With all due respect, you cannot make that decision for me. I still believe that there are good editors out there who are truly willing to show me around Wilipedia! I still have faith in the system and I am prepared to be mature about this and use the right procedures in good faith. I am here to learn but not to be bullied. Thanks.

Cowhen1966, explain why you tagged the article Italian cruiser San Marco claiming it resembled a "review". What led you to happen upon that article in the first place? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I must be honest, with my newly given and found powers to slap boxes on articles I have a bias towards for whatever reason, I thought I would retaliate and give them a doze of their own medicine. As in, if I looked hard enough then there is something that I would definitely find wrong with their articles, and I did ! However, I quickly snapped out of it because This isn't about who wins this is about trying to be professional. I therefore refuse to enter into an edditting war. If I do find something that I feel does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines, then I too will exercise the right to do so in good faith! I hope this clarifies your query.Cowhen1966 (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Cowhen1966 (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Cowhen1966, what you did here is called disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. This behavior could get you blocked from editing. Now, I doubt anyone will block you for it this time, since you are new, and you said you now understand that this isn't acceptable behavior. But please understand you could find yourself on thin ice here if you don't be more careful. When other editors tell you that your sources are a problem, listen to them! Most of the folks here understand Wikipedia pretty well and are trying to help you. Make sure you are the type of editor who will accept their help rather than being uncooperative. Friday (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

As you may find, I was not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I was getting sucked into an editing war so when I realised what was happening, I quickly decided not to participate in that sort of behavior. With my little experience here as a newbie I can understand why editing wars begin in the first place. So no! I was not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point I was prompted to take a look at their own work as anyone would do and genuinely found an issue with the tone. Funny how they removed the box without addressing the situation because they could but have refused to remove the box on the article I created as a single editor even after I have made the changes to the article as requested. Again Friday, as I have said before Wikipedia accept primary, secondary and tertiary sources all for different purposes. What Wikipedia does not permit is unsourced or poorly sourced references in support of what may seem libelous to Wikipedia. I never said that I acted in an unacceptable behavior. What I said was That I quickly avoided an editing war. But I did act professionally at all times. I do accept that I was slightly frustrated with the unfounded claims of poorly sourced material, problems with tone and grammar, issues with notability etc and that may have prompted me to look at their work, but I acted professionally at all times. The article I looked at read more like an advertisement than a Wikipedia article. Now can you see why editing wars begin and why I refuse to take part in it?Cowhen1966 (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It's also the only clear cut example of WP:Hounding or harassment I've seen from what's been discussed in this thread. As a single case and coming from a new editor, there may not be cause for any action due to it but it definitely doesn't help your cause if you're showing the beginnings of actual wikihounding/harassment. Nil Einne (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Not. At all! I contacted 2 forums that is hardly hounding is it? And the only reason why I did that is because I wanted a backup just in case I one of them did not receive my complaint or I may have not sent it through correctly. Remember! I am still trying to find my way around this expansive site and I am bound to make some mistakes along the way. I am sure you have been there before.Cowhen1966 (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Cowhen1996 I see you opened a mediation request relating to the dispute in this thread Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/An editor is harassing me and a made a fairly related DRN thread Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#My talk page and the page of one particular editor. I suggest you read WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Nil Einne (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The article in question is has some serious problems with reliable sources. See Talk:Cecil_Jay_Roberts#Reliable_sources_needed JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Cecil_Jay_Roberts JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It would help if you wouldn't insert your comments in random locations. My comment above was a reply to Friday's comment. And yes, following someone around wikipedia to find something you think they did wrong so that you can get your revenge is a clear cut example of hounding. You forumshopping could be construed as wikihounding as well but it's not what I'm referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I closed the DRN case because we do not deal with conduct disputes at DRN. Thanks. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine! This proves that had I not contacted a backup site and had just contacted DRN, my complaint would not have been heard.Cowhen1966 (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Reading over the comments on Sintaku's Talk Page, Cowhen1966 it sounds like you had a negative experience in "live chat" (I'm assuming an IRC channel?) that account for your hostility towards these editors. Every article on Wikipedia is subject to criticism but new articles get special scrutiny. You might find more help at WP:TEAHOUSE if you have specific questions about WP guidelines and standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC) thanks for that Liz. Hostility is not the word I would use to describe what has transpired here- it's more of trying to understand why people make the conclusions they do when it is quite obvious that the article does not make any libelous claims and is rightly sourced. It is frustrating for a single editor when multiple edits are being made on the article almost to the point of un recognition. It is ok if the edits being are libelous but they are not. Special scrutiny is welcome disrupting an article because its reference does not possess an ISBN number and the sources are foreign is not enough grounds to nominate the article for deletion.Cowhen1966 (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, I left a message on the reporting editor's talk page explaining why Sintaku tagged his article with maintenance templates and how that is not considered harassment. Looking everything over, unless something happened on a IRC channel, there was absolutely no harassment. I encourage you guys to read over the message. Cheers, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You may find MrScorch that the article does not suffer from poor grammar, tone or libelous claims. I endear you to revisit the article.Cowhen1966 (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Cowhen1966, I sympathize with your perspective, but let me give you a reassurance about the fact that you're not being singled out in any way here. I've been an editor of Wikipedia for more than seven years, I'm an administrator (which means that at some point people thought I could be trusted enough to get some dangerous tools) and I've made thousands of edits to this project. And even I am daunted by creating articles, because it's very difficult to get it right. Wikipedia tries to maintain standards for the articles it has, not just in regards to how they're written but even in regards to whether or not the subject deserves to be included. And living up to those standards can be difficult, especially for someone who does not have a great deal of experience here. So please don't feel that you're being harassed in some way, think of creating an article here as being similar to submitting a written work for publishing. Other people are going to critique it and edit it, and while they will try to treat you fairly it won't necessarily be without negative feedback. For that matter, to achieve what we call a "good article" which sounds simple enough is in reality a very difficult hurdle to cross and takes a great deal of work and expertise (and is probably beyond the ability of most people, myself included). So please don't feel discouraged, try to take use any criticisms as a way to improve your article. -- Atama頭 19:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

User:DJSkippyB not engaging in discussions

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.

---

DJSkippyB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had made continued edits to WP:WikiProject National Basketball Association-related articles that do not follow conventions used in the project's biographies, as well as those documented at Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Article_guidelines#Infobox_highlights. The user's talk page has numerous discussions initiated by editors from 24 December 2013 to present that have not received any response from DJSkippyB. Also, all of DJSkippyB's edits have incorrectly been labelled as "minor", despite numerous warnings[16][17][18]. I even asked the user to acknowledge that they are seeing talk page notices, but have not heard anything. The user has been blocked for edit warring before, and I didn't find any talk page interaction from the the user back then either. This could be that DJSkippyB for whatever reason is not aware of their talk page requests. I've seen in these rare situations that the user is sometimes blocked from editing only until they acknowledge they are seeing their talk page OK. As an WP:INVOLVED admin, I am requesting an indefinite block until any response is received, as WP:AGF is in order if there really is a notification issue. Any other suggestions to resolve this are welcome as well.—Bagumba (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for disruptive editing (continuing to mark major edits minor) and not addressing TP concerns. Hopefully, it'll get their attention. Miniapolis 00:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Calculator

Done, but in the future, please only use Megaparsecs as the S.I. distance measure, and Fathoms as the Imperial one. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 10:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

---

The wikipedia home page can only be edited by administrators. The lede news item talks about Renaud Lavillenie's new world record in the pole vault and reads "with a mark of 6.16 metres (20.21 ft)." 20.21 ft is a meaningless number. It should read 20' 2½" WikiProject Athletics has a better calculator {{T&Fcalc|}} which achieves much more proper, understandable results. I'm requesting an admin to fix that. Trackinfo (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You could always learn the metric system, the international standard for athletics. HiLo48 (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That's really a most unhelpful and incollegial answer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The record is 6.16 metres. That's how international athletics does these things, and has for many decades. It is not 20.21 feet, or 20' 2½". This is a quality encyclopaedia, and should be reflecting the realities of the international world. I suspect that even Americans with a serious interest in athletics would have some idea of the metric measurements. For those who haven't, is a conversion really needed? HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48, you are welcome to come to Alabama and tell the local NRA chapter how some foreigner is going to tell all 'mericans how to do measurements. The reality is the United States makes up a large percentage of the English speaking world, what wikipedia.en is supposed to be serving. The average American has no clue what metric measurements mean, despite decades trying to get them to convert. So you can sit on your high horse and demand that 300 million people convert, again, or we can speak to them in a language they understand, which is why wikipedia has all the other language services. Trackinfo (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As an American I dispute this statement from Trackinfo. Perhaps the average American in Alabama has no idea what metric measurements mean, but that doesn't represent the entire country. The fact of the matter is, anyone working in a STEM field should be well acquainted and comfortable with it. Welcome to the 21st century. It's time to join it. Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As someone working in a STEM field, let me assure that if we were trying to be pricks, we'd insist on using attoparsecs. If we weren't trying to be pricks, we'd be happy to use feet and inches. WilyD 10:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My reply consists of three words: Mars Climate Orbiter. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The "realities of the international world" are, as mentioned, that a large chunk of the English-speaking population (and thus the viewers of the English-language Wikipedia) will relate to feet and inches rather than meters; whether this is liked or not, that's how it is, and just having the meters reading would mean nothing to them. Therefore, a conversion is necessary, and if we're going to provide a conversion, a workable conversion is the one that should be provided. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously agreeing with Trackinfo that, even though it may not be ideal, Americans would not comprehend a decimal fraction of a foot? That it's not meaningful? HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should display as feet-and-inches instead of decimal feet, however I can't quite brain how to make {{convert}} not round to 20' 3". (Also, WP:ERRORS is the place for requests like this, for future reference). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

We had the problem with the regular convert giving the improper answer for the sport. That is why User:SillyFolkBoy developed the T&F Calculator itemized above. Look at Pole vault#Men (indoor) to see how we use it. Trackinfo (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not expect to be doing this at ANI, but there is a newish feature:

• {{convert|6.16|m|ftin|frac=2}} → 6.16 metres (20 ft 2+1⁄2 in)

Template talk:Convert is good for answers. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So we have found another solution to the one I suggested. Lowly editors can't make the fix. Its been three hours. What does it take to get an admin to actually make the edit to the home page? Trackinfo (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

An admin needs to edit Template:In the news to insert "|frac=2" as shown in the convert above. The proper place to ask for that is at WP:Main Page/Errors (which is a link at top of this page). The discussion there is a bit jumbled I'm afraid. Let's try pinging The Bushranger. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive account, copying another's talk and user pages, impersonating an administrator

Troll-B-Gon applied.- The Bushranger One ping only 23:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nothing more to see here. m.o.p 18:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Matreialscientist (talk · contribs) See username and edits. JNW (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Locked by me, then not worth a local block. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks. Perhaps user and talk pages should be removed as copies of Materialscientist's, with a disruptive intent. JNW (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Whoops, only just seen this (after issuing the unnecessary local block). I also took the liberty of deleting the userpages. Interested parties might find they want to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Presbitow; I also recall seeing User:Callenecc and one or two other impersonation accounts doing the round recently. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks for blocking the latest incarnation, and for protecting the page [19]. Cheers, JNW (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Should we notify Materialscientist? Chris857 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC) No; it's been dealt with, if they were the target of intentional trolling not disturbing them at all denies the troll recognition. NE Ent 16:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multi-user account

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

---

In this edit an editor, TrappedFan says in violation of NOSHARE, "I myself am not a single person, but rather a host of wikipedians who use this account to add to Trapped!" ANI notice given. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty unambiguous no-no. We do not allow shared accounts, and this isn't an implication, this is a declaration of a shared account. Not to mention the repeated insertion of original research. I'm going to block this editor indefinitely until there's a declaration that the account is only used by an individual. Per WP:ROLE, 'Because an account represents your edits as an individual, "role accounts", or accounts shared by multiple people, are as a rule forbidden and blocked'. -- Atama頭 22:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Good block. WP:ROLE is unambiguous. --John (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

User:7&6=thirteen promoting North Peak Brewing Company, edit warring

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

---

[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Probably all of their recent edits should be reverted. — goethean 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm scratching my head over this one. This is an established, productive editor who has been on this project for more than 6 years and received a number of barnstars for their work. And all of a sudden they're a spambot. I wonder if this is a compromised account. -- Atama頭 20:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Because I feel that this account may be compromised, and because the spam has been single-minded, persistent, and is still ongoing, I've given the account an indefinite block. I'm very concerned about this turn of events because this has been a great editor in my opinion (until very recently). -- Atama頭 20:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If I've erred in this, someone let me know. I don't generally do this sort of thing, but this just seems out-of-character for this editor. Their response to this also seems out-of-character; the unblock request looks like the kind made by a new editor, and I received an insulting email that didn't even bother to give a reason why the block was unjustified, it was just a number of insults. -- Atama頭 20:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I may have made a mistake. I've unblocked 7&6=thirteen with apologies for jumping to conclusions. -- Atama頭 20:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Very odd, indeed. I wonder if it really is spamming North Peak, or if the emphasis is on 666. The Marquette talk page seems like an odd place to mention this brewery, but it is attached to a reference to 66.6. Coincidence?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think this is intentional promotion, now that I've gotten over my worry that this account was compromised (self-trout at least for me). The language seems promotional, but I think that the intent here was to introduce trivia rather than to promote the beer product. In that sense, this may be more an issue of WP:HTRIVIA than WP:SPAM. -- Atama頭 21:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I want this block undone and expunged. I want an apology. I did nothing wrong. I am not a bot. There is not a scintilla of proof that I had become a bot. Atama頭 acted precipitously and without regard to my 60,000 edits, and Ipse dixit decided I was spamming. There was not even an edit war or discourse. Atama頭 just blocked me indefinitely. Atama頭 should be held accountable. For Atama頭 to say that my editing pattern has changed, he ouught to provide particulars and proof. for him to say that the editor has become a "single purpose account" and that the purpose isx spamming is without basis in fact. This administrator should be held to account. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

One question. In what world did you think it was appropriate to include an advertisement for a particular brand of beer in the articles Alcohol by volume and Beer measurement?--Cube lurker (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I support the expunging of the block, but that may take more than a simple discussion. This may be a good test case. I also understand why you might be unhappy about being blocked, but I hope you will look at the edits, which were quite inappropriate, and see them through the eyes of an admin who was concerned.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

And Talk:Marquette, Michigan? — goethean 21:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I apologized on the editor's talk page and I'll do so again now. Let me repeat the explanation I gave there.

• I think that you were inserting the information about the beer because of the 6.66% ABV. The language you used looked like promotion, it looked exactly like something that a marketer would write to promote the beer. Goethan interpreted your edits as having that intention, as did I. The fact that it was placed in 3 different locations at once also increased the suggestion that it was promotion. My initial concern was that you've never been a spammer, you've been a very productive editor who has done much good for Wikipedia, and my intent here was to block you until I was sure that this wasn't the case (because it has happened before to other editors). Once I figured out what you were trying to do, I unblocked you. I'm not quick to block people, I've even been criticized in the past for being too timid about giving editors a block, but given the impression I had here I thought it was urgent. Again, I apologize for my mistake, and I've stated the fact that I made a mistake when unblocking you so that in the future the block should not count against you.

I've made mistakes before, and I will again, I'm not perfect. I try to be cautious, I prefer to discuss things rather than block, and even in this case I wanted to be clear about what I was doing and why in case I was wrong. -- Atama頭 21:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I am unconvinced that the block was the error here. I'd like to hear the answer to my question from 7&6.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't an advertisement. It was s simple statement of fact. When they said it was poorly sourced, I gave them a better one. Them beer is named for two measurements of beer: namely IBU and ABV, which were manipulated to the number 666. Hypothetically, if there had been a dispute about the editing, we could have discussed it. This could have been addressed on the talk page. This did not become an WP:edit war, in any known definition of the term. Instead, it became a summary automatic and uncalled for "indefinite block" for no apparent reason. Without warning. The allegations in support of the block are Kafkaesque and bizarre. That Cube lurker could opine that these actions were justified is troubling to me.

As to the three different spots, mentioning it in the North Peak Brewing Company is not so strange. Lots of brewery articles have that kind of information. The other two were simply explanations of the measurement and how it had been exploited by the brewer.

That you are now fabricating new narratives to justify this bizarre behavior and intolerable blook suggests that there was no good reason in the first place. There is a lack of due process here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I accept the apology.

But I am affronted by the new claim that there was WP:Edit warring. That was never part off the initial charge. Is this a new charge? An amendment nunc pro tunc? There was no war. There were no shots. There was no warning. There is no proof. Before you pull somebody's chain and ignore there 66,000 60.000 edits,, wouldn't you want to warn them or post a notice somewhere? Look at your procedures and clean your own house. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You placed identical text promoting a commercial product in three places, all of which were completely off-topic. When reverted your edit. You inserted the text again. I had two choices: remove your text again (that would be edit warring), or go tell an admin. I chose the latter. The admin saw what I saw: spam edits, and stopped them by blocking you. You still haven't explained your edits satisfactorily in my opinion. — goethean 21:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec) There are no other breweries listed in those semi-science articles I mentioned. They were clearly inappropriate. I have other belief's, but I'm a bit hamstrung by policies. Perhaps you were just having a lapse of judgement on those edits.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I've now removed 13 16 links to Amazon.com that User:7&6=thirteen had placed in various articles (all for the same book), and in response, he has accused me of stalking him.[25] — goethean 21:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If there was a question about the edits or their content, they could have been WP:brdd and discussed at the articles talk page. They were all relevant to the articles in question. That you don't like them is not a satisfactory criterion to me. It is an ex post facto justificstion of an untoward and irresponsible reaction. Like beauty, relevancy is in the eyes of of the beholder. This is all just boot strapping on your part. If you expect me to apologize for those edits, think again. This was all grossly disproportionate and without even a scintilla of a bow to wiki policy. No violation of WP:3RR. No warnings on any of my pages. Ask WP:AIV how its supposed to be done. And that is all ignoring my history. Bottom line, you used a shotgun to skill a flea, And your complaint about the books is a new accusation? So we are xclear, I did not accuse you of stalking. In fact, I said there was no proof. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Uh, the "R" in BRD stands for "revert", so Goethean did BRD them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing how it is appropriate to include the Amazon links like you did, and for such an experienced editor, 7&6=thirteen, it's a little concerning that you can't see any problem here. No comment on the brewery edit(s). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

He did it (reverted) once. Where is the "block" in WP:BRD? I would give an anonymous editor more warning than I was given. And I was given none. If you don't like the links, pull them out or discuss it on the talk page. But don't subject me to an after-the-fact inquisition. This is rapidly becoming a witch hunt. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• This is probably why is says in the box at the top of this page "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page". If Goethean had done that instead of running here, much of this could have been avoided. Atama made a mistake, apologized, and 7&6=thirteen accepted it. "Edit warring" is an incorrect description. The beer edits are probably rightly removed, but I understand why they were added, and it isn't "spam". The rest of the disagreement can be handled through normal discussion on article talk pages. And the Amazon links are not how we do things, but coming so soon on the heels of being accused of being a shill for a beer company, surely you can see how that would tend to piss someone off? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yup, that's fair enough. I'll close this section without further action, unless someone thinks I'm too involved to do so (in which case, let me know and I'll self-revert). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Apology for if my earlier edits were deemed vandalous

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 recently received a warning, earlier today, in regards to having vandalized the Need for Speed: Most Wanted (2005 video game) project/article, and wanted to apologize for if the Wikimedia administrators believed that my actions were in violation of the Wikipedia Terms of Use and threatened to block my edit privileges as a result.

I am autistic and I apologize again for if my in-depth detail of the game's plot, along with a few things in regards to the final part of the game play, violated the Terms of Use and sanctioned a block due to vandalism.

Since I did that edit, I have been more careful, even before receiving the warning, with what I add, or edit, to an article on the Wikipedia site, so I do not risk violating the Terms of Use again. I rarely even edit any articles anymore as, even if I went overboard on details on something, other users have helped to correct my mistakes before they can be discovered and considered threats to the Wikipedia community. If I edit any articles from now on, it is either fixing a minor typo, or a minor addition that does not violate the article's general description and be considered a threat to other users.

I'll even use the edit on Wikipedia only when I am at the library to ensure that I don't risk getting in trouble with the Wikimedia administrators again.

If any of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia administrators read this, I am deeply sorry for if my behavior was considered dangerous and feel deeply remorseful for it. Please accept my deepest apologies and allow me to continue editing articles in a more general and non-specific style to ensure I do not risk bringing the Ban-hammer down and lose my privileges forever.

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.179.166 (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That's an odd warning, because you've not edited that article using that IP address today.

In fact apart from the revert, nobody has edited it since 9th Feb...and your own edits were from last year :-s

The person 'who warned' you has made less edits than you. I wouldn't worry about it at all. Feel free to remove the warning. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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

2.186.172.122

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 Ask the admins to take action against the editor that uses IP address 2.186.172.122 he is engaged in vandalism.

Here are some examples:

1. her
2. her
3. her
4. her
5. her
6. her
7. her

And that's not all examples of his vandalism. I ask admins block this IP address. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This editor continues to sabotage actions against me. It must be stopped. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have given them a 48hr rest, but WP:AIV is the best place to report vandalism. If you want your userpage protected from edits, let us know (normally that's requested at WP:RFPP, but since you've got our attention at the moment, you can request it here) DP 10:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Carlossuarez46 mass-creating articles

There is no consensus for administrative action resulting from this discussion. It has however been become obvious that the massive article creations by Carlossuarez46 are thought to be problematic by more than one editor and they are part of a larger problem concerning the thresholds of notability and automated edits. This is, however, not the right venue to discuss issues like notability of populated places and bot-like editing, and one recommended place to continue the discussion about such problems is WP:BRFA. While I'm closing this thread I'm also urging Carlossuarez46 to voluntarily cease his article creations until such time he has gained approval by consensus. Any continuation by Carlossuarez46 would appear like making a point and would further discredit his actions. De728631 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs) is creating thousands of articles - between 2 and 10 per minute.

I've asked them to stop to discuss it, per WP:MASSCREATION.

The user has responded, but has not stopped since being asked. [26]

Ongoing creations

22:57, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+436)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Bajar ‎ (create) (current) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,835)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Khoda Rahm, Khash ‎ (create) (current) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,781)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Khoda Nazer, Gowhar Kuh ‎ (create) (current) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,799)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Mehrab, Khash ‎ (create) (current) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,827)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Yar Mohammad ‎ (create) (current) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,820)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Cheragh ‎ (create) (current) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,812)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Anur ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,813)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Akbar, Khash ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,781)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Gargij ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,767)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Gami, Khash ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,806)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Gol Mohammad, Khash ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,882)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Qir Mohammad Mir Kazehi ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,813)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Bulan Zehi Kach ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,821)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Bi Barg Rigi ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,824)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Esmailabad ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,780)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Amirabad ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,755)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Saraj ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,840)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Yusef Hasan Zehi ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,772)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Khodadad, Khash ‎ (create) (current) 22:53, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,827)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Qader Bakhsh ‎ (create) (current) 22:53, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,755)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Bajar, Khash ‎ (create) (current)

88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• User:88.104.19.233 is an admitted sock puppet (see its talk page where he/she admits using multiple accounts, but nowhere does he link them as required by WP:SOCK). Each of the articles is notable and in the creation of the stub categories (see stub categories for creation), all this was discussed long ago. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not admit that. I admit I have edited Wikipedia in the past. I have followed all due policies and guidelines in respect of that.

Plus, that is a utterly separate issue; feel free to start SPI or whatever you wish.

WP:MASSCREATION says, clearly, "The community has decided that any large-scale automated or semi-automated article creation task must be approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval." - and "While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, a suggestion of "anything more than 25 or 50" was not opposed."

Carlossuarez46 is creating thousands of articles, at a speed that must be considered 'bot-like'. There are concerns with at least some of the articles being made - but it is unrealistic to address the concerns whilst they make 50 more articles in the time I've spent replying here. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• • The IP does not appear to be doing anything wrong, as there is no rule against editing while logged out or any requirement to disclose the name of your account if you do edit while logged out. Reyk _YO! 23:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

All I ask is, for the user to stop and discuss it. If they will not, I ask admins to stop them. I'll be happy to discuss the articles, but this is an ongoing disruption - which is the only reason I am posting on ANI. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• We're now discussing; the difficulty with the anon is that we have no idea whether he/she is participating in more than one incarnation. Logging out to do edits that you don't want to be reflected in your "real" account is problematic. Does User:Reyk consider that to be acceptable editing? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do consider that to be acceptable editing. Policy explicitly allows it. Unless the edits themselves are disruptive (which I see no evidence of), there's no problem with anything 88.104 is doing. If you're not satisfied with that you know the way to SPI, but in the meantime is there a reason for your apparently automated creation of zillions of badly sourced microstubs? Reyk _YO! 23:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

All I ask is, for the user to stop and discuss it. If they will not, I ask admins to stop them. I'll be happy to discuss the articles, but this is an ongoing disruption - which is the only reason I am posting on ANI. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If they'll stop, then the rest of this can all be discussed amicably over a nice-cup-of-whatever-beverage-you-prefer. That includes allogations of my breaching SOCK policy, and debates about masscreation, and discussion of sourcing, etc. -I've asked the user to stop, and they haven't done so; that's why I'm seeking admin intervention - to extinguish the ongoing fire. They've created about 20 more in the few minutes since I first posted here. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

C, I agree that "Logging out to do edits that you don't want to be reflected in your "real" account is problematic". But I am not doing that. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Most of the articles seem to be for places. They appear to be trying to turn {{Khash County}} blue.--Auric talk 23:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Auric, sure, and I'm happy to discuss that. But please glance at [27] and indeed just their ongoing contribs.

 Right now, they must stop and discuss. Right now. If not sooner. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's interesting, but it gives no timescale.--Auric talk 23:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*What you are doing is avoiding WP:SCRUTINY; what axes have you to grind? what is your real position? have we had history you don't want anyone to know about? That's part of the problem - if you won't tell us your real account how does the community know you're not me (you're not we both know that but no one else does) or anyone else who comments here.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No axes, nothing to hide. But that's irrelevant right now. Do whatever you like to me later. Just stop. Then we can talk. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*You fail to assume good faith; why would I "do something to you to later" - I didn't even block you as a sock or start an SPI on you - geez. So far you haven't forwarded a single objection to anything I've created; you say you want to discuss but you haven't said anything meaningful on topic. And when you do, your comments can be assessed, but if you won't show us what your position is, how can we assess that properly? As I told you these were discussed at the stub creation long long ago - for all I know you were there then. WP is not a bureaucracy. I ask you to stop editing in your logged out mode and come to the table as your (wiki)self. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"I didn't even block you as a sock or start an SPI" - gosh, thanks! I am so very grateful that your munificence, the Admin, didn't just abuse your powers.

I have a reason: WP:MASSCREATION. I can give specific reasons regarding specific articles, if you'll just damn well stop for a bit!

I'm pretty sure I've never interacted with you in the past, FWIW - although still, it's irrelevant.

You're an admin, for Gods' sake. Please stop disrupting the wiki, and fall back on core principles, so we can discuss it. Surely you can see that creating 10 articles per minute needs a bit of a chat, without explicit approval? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• So we've had interaction. What was it? This is the part of you anon where no-one can tell your real motives. As I said and keep saying: this was discussed long ago. It doesn't need to be discussed routinely regularly. About 90% of the populated places in Iran are now completed; you think that we don't need the rest? What other articles don't we need? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem unable to read; I said, "I'm pretty sure I've never interacted with you in the past".

As you have raised the topic of your adminship, I looked up your RfA. I note that it is from 2007, and is considerably different from current standards. So it is natural that, after so long, you might not be aware of current expectations.

Would you be prepared to submit to a fresh RfA? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Since you're a sock we can never know what other editors think of you...Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I think Carlossquarez46 needs to follow policy and get Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval approval for mass creation. NE Ent 23:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*You started out of the gate accusing me that I would do something to you... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand that statement; please clarify it and supply diffs. Thanks. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Your addition above "Do whatever you like to me later." speaks for itself. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem here. Carlossuarez46 has been writing stubs on Iranian settlements since 2011, and I don't see any reason why he should stop now. WP:MASSCREATION isn't applicable here, since it doesn't appear that he's using any kind of automated process; when all he has to do is copy the previous article and change the population info, it's rather easy to create multiple articles in a minute. Unless there's some flaw in the Iranian census data (and if there is, the IP hasn't mentioned it), these are all sourced articles on notable topics. If there's a legitimate complaint about the quality of the source, I'd be interested in hearing it, but otherwise I don't see why the IP is demanding that a three-year article-writing project be stopped now. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There's probably no problem at all with the creations, which should make getting the required approval from Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval fairly straightforward. NE Ent 00:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

My first post in this matter was to ask you to stop and discuss. [28]

Your response was on my own talk, "I'm a bot not a human". [29]. Again, I asked you to stop while we discussed, but you continued.

And that is how we arrived here at ANI.

I don't think I 'started out of the gate' with any accusations at all.

However, you started out by accusing me of being a sock. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the response was "I'm not a bot, I'm a human"[30]; precisely the opposite of what you claim. RolandR (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

TheCatalyst31 do you think anyone can create 10 articles within 1 minute without using automation?

I do indeed have questions about the source quality, and I can discuss that if he'll stop to give me a chance! 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Of course, open 10 browser windows, have the articles written in word and cut and paste. You'd be happier if these went one per minute, that can also be done, but it would just be a longer stretch of my time. You talk about your vague objections but nothing concrete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Then perhaps there is nothing for you to lose by pausing for a few minutes and allowing the IP to expand in their apparent concerns? You can always resume if their complaints are meritless. Resolute 00:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• No, see WP:MEATBOT. Whether Carlossuarez46 is use full automation, semi-automation, or even cut-and-paste doesn't matter. NE Ent 00:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• As you can see, I haven't created a new article for about an hour and anon has raised nothing during that period. How much longer does he or she need? As for WP:MEATBOT there is no sacrificing of quality nor disruption. Show me the contrary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• There is no universally accepted definition of "automation," but any series of rapid edits may be considered automation. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Identifying_the_use_of_automation_tools and Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Amendment_request:_Rich_Farmbrough_.28Nobody_Ent.29. NE Ent 00:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46, Re "vague objections" - I can make specific objections, and discuss this, within 24 hours.

Can you please stop creating the new articles for 24 hours, to give me a chance to respond?

If so, this ANI discussion is concluded.

The 'side issues' about my alleged socking, and your admin conduct, could be discussed elsewhere on more appropriate fora. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

striking, per the below 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually - I think the best solution would be if you'd submit a Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and we can discuss it there before you continue. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'll hold off for 24 hours to hear your specific objections; there is a Wikipedia:RSNB as a forum if you think that the sources are not reliable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I struck my "24" thing just as you were replying.

Will you go via BRFA before making any more? Or not? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• You have 24 hours to present your objections. Speak or hold your peace. Excessive drama on your part is wasting everyone's time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Carlossuarez46, you are causing the "drama" here. You were, in good faith, mass creating articles in violation of a policy you weren't aware of. No big deal. However, once the policy was pointed out to you you've resorted to ad hominem attacks, unsupported sock accusations and WP:IDHT. Unless you can get the WP:MASSCREATION policy changed in the next 24 hours, your deadline is meaningless. (A quick check of notability guidelines, which I'm no so expert at, makes me think the articles are likely fine so I think you should not have an issue getting the necessary approval.) NE Ent 00:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In response to 'You have 24 hours' I do not accept that.

I think it's bullying.

I ask admins to take necessary measures to prevent you from mass creating articles unless/until you receive appropriate approval, per policy. Besides, last I heard, there was no deadline.

I'm confident I could provide objections within 24 hours, but I don't see why I - personally - should have to deal with such a 'deadline'. I think you need to go through the appropriate channels instead - which will give me the opportunity to explain my issues with the pages you plan to create.

You've repeatedly refused (here) to adhere to WP:MASSCREATION, which is a policy - so I look forward to admin responses to that ongoing problem. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:MASSCREATION does not apply to manual editing, by its very terms. You haven't complied with WP:SOCK and furthermore, you propose a solution and walk away from it after it's accepted - where's your good faith? And you still haven't provided any specifics on what you claim is wrong with the sources. Absent that, your whole pitch is drama. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Continued debate would be disruptive and pointless, so I trust in admins to take appropriate action. You've been advised to adhere to policy, but are resolutely refusing to do so. I'll provide 'appropriate diffs' in due course; I hope that in the meantime you will be prevented from further disrupting the wiki. Best, 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If this isn't "mass creation", I don't know what is. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have now added a few specific objections [31] - really, those are just examples. We're talking about thousands of articles, made out-of-process by an admin who refuses to stop.

Seriously - I do understand places are considered intrinsically 'notable' - but a village of 24 people in "4 families", with the only ref being 'search it here' and a 2006 excel spreadsheet that mentions it? Seriously? If this is permitted, I'm gonna write about my bathroom.

And that's just one of the hundreds of articles they created during this ANI discussion - at like 10 articles created per minute. I hope you can see why this is disruptive? It could take years for sensible editors to make any of this encyclopaedic.

How many has the user made? I don't know. Thousands.

Anyone can automatically make this stuff, from random non-reliable-sources; it just pollutes the accuracy of the project and creates massive amounts of work for others. This is pretty shocking stuff - especially from an admin. And when asked to desist, their response is to accuse me of 'socking' and ask me to thank 'em for not blocking me. Good grief. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• The articles seem perfectly appropriate to me. including the one mentioned above. There is no question about the notability, even at a very small size, and I can see nothing inappropriate with the sourcing. Unless you can show somethings actually wrong about the articles, I don;t the the reason to complain about them. The rule relating to mass creation was intended to stop totally automated or semi-automated processes unless they could be shown to be accurate, as we had before that--and after that--several such creations that caused considerable trouble; it was a necessary rule & I certainly support it. But I see no agreement there on the number of edits which would be considered a mass creation: someone did suggest 50, someone else suggested thousands. It's perfectly possible to create 50 routine articles of this sort in a few minutes by copying and pasting, if one has a suitable reliable source, and I do not consider this semi-automation. The guiding principle is the WP is not a bureaucracy. All limits on article creation are meant to prevent harming the encyclopedia, not to prevent its improvement. (And, fwiw, I definitely do consider editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny to be very close to bad faith editing.) DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• 1) The spreadsheets are the official Iranian census reports. If you think that a government's census reports lack reliability, you are mistaken. The link is to the US's geonames database which is used as a reliable source throughout wikipedia. 2) you claim that I have created "hundreds of articles ... during this ANI discussion." This discussion began at "23:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)", as your initial edit is timed. Everyone is free to check my contributions: no new articles (much less 100) during this discussion. Now you are lying to try to make some point??? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Opinions vary on these contentless cookie-cutter geographical location microstubs. Some claim all geographical locations are inherently notable and therefore MUST have an article even if there's nothing to write about. Other, myself included, reject the notion of inherent notability altogether. Mechanically grinding away at a meaningless task just to achieve a 100% completion rate is fine if you're a video game addict, but not for an encyclopedia. Here it just serves to dilute and diffuse content so that it cannot be used. I don't remember if "Random article" was ever useful, but these days you can never get anything except these mass-produced and utterly vacuous "articles". Finally, if you think 88.104 is in violation of WP:SOCK, you know the way to SPI. Badmouthing someone, but being unwilling to go through the proper channels, is not a good look. Reyk _YO! 02:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I am not in violation of SOCK. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Simple question - which I have asked before: will you adhere to WP:MASSCREATION or not?

After hours of dispute, you have refused to adhere to that policy. I've no idea why you have not been blocked until you will (except, of course, you are an admin so you're special). 88.104.19.233 (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What on earth is the problem with the articles of Carlossuarez46. I see many of them coming into the list of articles with disambiguation pages and I seen them leave almost just as quickly. When I requested some edits on an article with many dab-links, responded quickly, politely and solved the links to disambiguation pages. His field of work is outside my interest (except solving the dab-links) but I have no indication that Carlossuarez46 is creating sub-standard articles. So what on earth is the problem? The Banner talk 02:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Apologies for saying they created "hundreds of articles during this ANI discussion" - they only made 38 new pages.

38

23:29, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Khoda Nazer, Gowhar Kuh ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Mehrab, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Yar Mohammad ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Cheragh ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Anur ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Akbar, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Gargij ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Gami, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Gol Mohammad, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Qir Mohammad Mir Kazehi ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Bulan Zehi Kach ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Bi Barg Rigi ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Esmailabad ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Amirabad ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Saraj ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Yusef Hasan Zehi ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Khodadad, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Qader Bakhsh ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Bajar, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Khoda Rahm, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:22, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+55)? . . N Rahimabad, Sistan and Baluchestan ? (redir) (current) 23:22, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+41)? . . N Rahimabad, Gowhar Kuh ? (redir) (current) 23:21, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Khoda Rahm ? (projs) (current) 23:20, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+541)? . . N Mowtowr-e Khoda Rahm ? (create) (current) 23:19, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Khoda Nazer ? (projs) (current) 23:19, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+460)? . . N Mowtowr-e Khoda Nazer ? (create dab) (current) 23:15, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Mehrab ? (projs) (current) 23:14, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+467)? . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Mehrab ? (create) (current) 23:14, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Akbar ? (projs) (current) 23:13, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+462)? . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Akbar ? (create) (current) 23:12, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Gami ? (projs) (current) 23:12, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+461)? . . N Mowtowr-e Gami ? (create) (current) 23:11, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Gol Mohammad ? (projs) (current) 23:10, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+947)? . . N Mowtowr-e Gol Mohammad ? (create) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+34)? . . N Mowtowr-e Esma'ilabad ? (REDIR) (current) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Khodadad ? (projs) (current) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+602)? . . N Mowtowr-e Khodadad ? (create dab) (current)

88.104.19.233 (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Banner is it OK if I mass-create 10,000 articles about the rooms in the homes around me, if I reference it to a spreadsheet from my local housing club? More to the point - if I'm asked to stop, should I stop and discuss it? Would it be OK if I just said "oh, you're probably just a SOCK so I will ignore you and carry on regardless"? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You still fail to mention what the problem is of his "burst-creations" (a lot of articles in a short time and then quietness). The way you act gives me more the idea that you have a grudge against Carlossuarez46 and are out for revenge than that you serve the interests of the encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 14:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Suggested test-case; perhaps someone can nominate Purjangi, Khash for AFD. And we'll see how it goes.

I can't easily do it myself, as an IP.

I'd think that an article about a 'place' with a population of 24 with only a ref to an archived 'census' would be deleted, but we can see if we try.

If it isn't, I really am tempted to write articles about 2b My Street, Someplace - and to mass-create 3,4,5,6 and 7b. They're all real places too, and I can show an equivalent 'reliable source'. I can even write a bot to make them, 10 per minute - no worries there. And I shall do so - not WP:POINT, but only if it's OK to do so.

Hell, if Wikipedia accepts articles on such places - great! I have a million articles to add!

So which way are we going here? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the notability issue, articles on populated places are practically always kept at AfD (and given that somebody tries to nominate one every few months, I doubt consensus has changed since the last time this happened). Part of Wikipedia's function as an encyclopedia is to function as a gazetteer, according to the five pillars. Gazetteers traditionally include settlements, even small ones, and do not include individual houses or rooms, so there's a pretty clear distinction here. Keep in mind that one of the first major increases in Wikipedia's article count came when a user created articles on every settlement which was counted in the US census; I don't see why Iran should be treated differently. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a lovely argument, and one we can have elsewhere.

Meanwhile some fucking admin who thinks they're God is adding 1000s of articles that don't adhere to WP:V, and when I request they stop I'm accused of being a 'sock'. How about that? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, calm down please. Stay civil. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, so to rephrase that in civil terms;

A user is creating thousands of articles which do no adhere to policy;

I asked them to stop, but they refused.

So I asked for help from admins, because it is an ongoing issue that is disrupting the wiki. I explained why with regard to policy.

The user has refused to stop.

The user happens to be an admin, but I don't think that is relevant.

OK? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The articles created do not breach WP:MASSCREATION as they are not automated or semi-automated. I think this point has been made several times. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with DGG and The Banner: this seems like much ado about a minor issue. Can't we just go back to improving the encyclopedia without all the personal snipes? – Connormah (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on, dude; MASSCREATION consensus says "While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, a suggestion of "anything more than 25 or 50" was not opposed".

This user is creating thousands of new pages.

Surely you cannot be saying this is not 'mass creation]? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I can see MASSCREATION might well apply, since cutting and pasting is semi-automated, as far as I'm concerned. At the same time, Carlos has stopped, from what I gather, so I might ask, as the IP has done elsewhere, what admin action is required? FWIW, I removed one of the IP's PRODs since such a deletion in these circumstances needs to follow a discussion. Given how much trouble the IP goes through to get their point across (and can you please try and do so without hitting "return", twice, after every period? sheesh!), they could have created a dozen accounts already to send these stubs on four-family villages to AfD, so a proper community discussion can shed some light on this. Now, I'm not going to close this thread, since the IP seems to have delicate toes and I'm a bit overweight, but I don't think there is much else to do here. Drmies (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting is no more automated than using a keyboard. They're both done on a highly automated machine using its technical facilities. Either can be considered automated if done by a script, but not if done by hand. (I interpret semi-automated as done by a script with manual checking, and automated if done without such checking) Anyone who creates articles on factual material, especially numerical or geographic material, without inserting the data by cutting and pasting is in fact probably doing it sub-optimally, as any other method is much more likely to introduce typographical errors. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Drmies,

IFF TheCatalyst31 stops mass-creating articles in breach of policy, then sure, that's OK.

Or if they put in an appropriate bot request, in accord with WP:MASSCREATION - that would be groovy.

For 'right now', we have a user creating massive amounts of articles without agreement, who is refusing to stop and discuss things. That is why I sought admin help here.

As of now, they have not agreed to adhere to policy, and they've continued to create articles.

OK, so maybe they stopped right now 'coz they've gone to bed or whatever; but I will probably sleep too, and I don't want to awake to find they made another 1000 bot-like articles that will need fixing. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What does it matter IP??? His articles are free from errors and are constructive. Carlos has been working on Iranian articles were several years, why now does it matter if he's found a way to generate them quicker if they're accurate? Between 2 and 10 isn't problematic, if it was over 10 then it might be appropriate to request permission. Leave him alone, let him get on with it and do something useful. Stop rule warring half a dozen times with the same old thing. Somebody close this thread as soon as possible please, the Manchester-based IP has now been blocked for disruption.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

When did the mass creation of microstubs with minimal sourcing and no evidence of notability become "constructive"? bobrayner (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

He's attempting to provide very basic information about real world locations in a developing world country. You could argue that it might be better to created sourced lists by district instead of a stub for every place but it remains a constructive approach and attempt to improve us as a resource. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

2002. — Scott • talk 12:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Which was approved by BRFA, which is what masscreation requires and precisely what Carlossuarez46 has been requested to do. NE Ent 12:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the BRFA was filed in 2006, four years after the Rambot stubs were mass-created, and two years after they were kept at VfD. Copy/paste creating is not bot creating, and there's nothing wrong here. He's helping, moreover, by creating articles for places that most people won't know how to search for, since these places' names are in the Arabic script, not Latin. Nyttend (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Just to make things clear: I do not object to Carlossuarez's work; in fact, I have congratulated him on it not too long ago. I do believe that MASSCREATION applies (I differ with DGG, but that's possibly because he has a clearer idea on what "semi-automated" means than I do, and I don't know what those scripts are and what they can do--don't bother explaining), but Carlos has been doing this for years and I am not aware of any previous problems with his contributions. Or, to put it another way, I assume he has permission, whether tacitly or explicitly. Ent's link I do not understand; that is, I don't understand what it has to do with this, but I'm probably betraying my technical ignorance.

  What made this get out of hand is first Carlos's insistent line of questioning about the IP (socking, etc), which in my opinion was unnecessary: if everything is above board with these creations, then the source of the question should be irrelevant. Second, of course, is the IP's...insistence, which got them blocked for actions in another thread, involving yours truly. Reyk's and Bobrayner's comments, however, indicate that not everyone is at peace with those creations; their's may be a minority opinion, but it should be taken seriously--ANI is not the place to do that in, that goes without saying. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• I fail to see the issue. The articles are mass created, but they are not bad articles. They are perfectly notable. On the subject of "automated editing", copy-paste is no more automated than my fingers hitting an arbitrary plastic key and somehow making these words. I could have just easily found each and every word here in another article and diligently copy-pasted them to make this paragraph, and it would be no more or less of a paragraph, because it still conveys (or konveyshehehe) the same amount of ideas. KonveyorBelt 18:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Historically, "automated" editing has been difficult to define (as indicated by WP:MEATBOT) -- see a discussion from last March about whether something was or was not "automated." The simple, policy compliant thing to do remains getting WP:BRFA approval; Carlossuarez46 could have done that already with far less fuss than this ANI thread. I'm a very IAR contributor but somedays it just makes more sense to cross the tees and do the eyes. NE Ent 02:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Question for @Carlossuarez46: Why have you accused the IP of being a sock with no evidence? I know that there is a guideline/policy that states this may not be done, and some editors may consider this a personal attack. (If someone else knows it please link to it below). MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPA NE Ent 02:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hmmm you state I've accused the IP with "no evidence". The IP stated here that he/she has edited under other names. Per WP:SOCK: a user may not edit logged out to violate any of the prohibitions on socking generally: "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy." The IP session was used to violate WP:SCRUTINY and WP:HAND, particularly using the logged out account for a set of edits he/she doesn't want traced to his real account. His/her disruptive editing earned him a block, but his main account is "clean". At least one other admin has expressed concerns about this above. In the bigger picture; as the IP requested above: "All I ask is, for the user to stop and discuss it.", done and done. This dead horse has been flogged - and we're discussing meta issues and diverging - and there is no consensus that my edits are improper, and they will resume when convenient. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping.

Per WP:MASSCREATION, will you please now sumbit a request via BRFA before you make more articles? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand that A7 does not apply to places - and that's fine, regarding potential deletion. However, just because we make an exception for places when choosing deletion, it does not mean that you should create new articles with such weak sources. There are core policies that state creating such articles is prohibited - WP:V, WP:GNG. We can discuss the nuances in regards to places - I don't think ANI is the right place for that.

My main concern is, you (an admin) are adding articles to the wiki that policy says you shouldn't create in the first place. I accept that other policies say that such articles should not necessarily be deleted - but that is another issue.

You're creating articles from information that is like this;

Place	Pop (from a spreadsheet)	Geo coords
Someplacename	10	1,2,3
Anotherplacename	20	3,4,5
Yetanotherplacename	30	6,7,8

You've got literally around 20 bytes of information about these 'places', and from each of those you are making articles that are about 4000 bytes - that is, 200 times times more than the information seems to need.

Example: Mowtowr-e Hajji Cheragh. All you 'know' is, it's a village. In that particular example, you don't even know the population or where it is.

Just that the name was once mentioned on a census.

I do understand that the wiki gives a special case for places, but really... there is no encyclopaedic information about that village, except that it probably exists. Nothing. But you've made an article that, with templates, is over 800 lines long. It adds nothing to the encyclopaeida at all.

So please, will you stop adding any more, and allow discussion? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• As discussed above it doesn't apply, so no. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• You seem to show a great dislike of administrators. You keep repeating that I am one. You also noted earlier that that's not relevant. I beg to differ from your interpretation: it adds "nothing" to the encyclopedia is your opinion. It is not the majority opinion. As one of Wikipedia's 5 pillars is to be a gazetteer, putting an article about each place is part of what Wikipedia is. given that we're not paper, we're uniquely able to do that. Once an article is started others can expand it (including IP's like you who cannot create an article) - some have already begun to expand Aghuyeh, East Azerbaijan among numerous others. You don't like the sources, but you didn't complain to RS notice board. The census published by the Iranian government and subsequently taken down is used throughout. Geonames is published by the US government. Other sources are also used. Rather than trying to stop or delete articles, improve them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop the ad hominem attacks.

As to whether 'mass creation' applies;

On 16 Feb, you created over 1000 new pages.

[list blanked--page size increase of some 25% is not helpful. it's in the history if you want to see it. Drmies]

I put it to you that that is 'mass creation' in anybody's terms. Nobody can realistically say a user can create so many valid articles in such a short time, without automation. Whether you're copy-pasting onto tabs, or using a program or whatever tool, is beside the point. You are mass-creating articles.

I am challenging whether your mass-creating is appropriate, with reference to policy.

So far, you have refused to acknowledge the policy, and your retaliation was to accuse me of being a 'sock'.

I intend to challenge that in the appropriate places - if you want to accuse me of socking, please use the right forum for it. I might do an RFC/U about your conduct. And the content of the articles (for mass creation) can be done on BRFA or AFD or whatever. ANI isn't the right place for that.

The only thing that belongs on ANI is, if admin actions are needed to prevent disruption. At the moment, you are refusing to follow policies; you have already created thousands of problematic articles without appropriate approval. I'm just asking you to stop it, and follow policy. Is all. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Your behavior here demonstrates that even were MASSCREATION to apply - which is doesn't to manual creations - it would be futile to go through that process. So even were it to apply, IAR also applies, which is also policy, and off we go. You have threatened to take various articles to AFD, plesee do so if you think you are correct. But I think it quite unfair that your objections should deprive the English-language Wikipedia of these articles (which seem to have no problem at the Farsi wikipedia). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm with drmies on this one: while I don't quite comprehend IP's tenacity, Carlossuarez46 could easily afford a two-day conversation about this mass creation. No one will suffer if a stub article containing an Iranian village name and population is delayed by a week, and then this entire thread could be archived and never read again. Sharpened axes could once again rust in peace. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

We've had a two-day discussion here and what has come of it? There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I am doing (a minority opinion certainly objects, I see that). I am often in a minority in XFD discussions, but I would not repeatedly trying to force my position on others by trying to make them stop what the community doesn't prohibit. What ever happened to WP:BOLD, avoiding WP:BUREAU, and trying to make an encyclopedia (including the gazetteer part)? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said, you don't have to stop: a brief pause (causing injury to no one) and an explanation, then you will most likely be able to continue just as before, but with even more consensus behind you, avoiding future problems of this sort. I don't see any reason to block or stop you, but I feel that IP has the right to ask for some clarification before add more new entries.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The community prohibits the mass-creation of articles without prior approval. Full stop. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46, you've said many things that indicate you do not understand current English Wikipedia norms - such as, "your objections should deprive the English-language Wikipedia of these articles (which seem to have no problem at the Farsi wikipedia)" for example. I wonder if this is because you passed RfA in 2007, when standards were very different indeed.

I have already asked you on your talk page, but I ask again here;

Will you voluntarily resign your admin status, and go through RfA, to show your current knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and to ensure the community has faith in your being an admin? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Mr.Choppers: I have answered all the sourcing questions. Notability can be tested at AFD, not ANI, as the IP states. Opinions on what gazetteer entries add to the project don't require further response. The IP's interpretation of MASSCREATION in not correct (or at least doesn't have a consensus) as has been discussed above, there seems only that procedural clarification. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46, do you think that a user creating around 1000 new pages per day is 'mass creation', or not? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You do understand that the policy only applies to automated and semi-automated creation, not to manual cut and paste. Continued provocation is a great de-motivator. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you please directly answer the questions;

1. Do you agree that creating 1000 pages in 1 day is 'mass creation'?

2. Will you stop until you get approval from WP:BRFA per WP:MASSCREATION?

3. Will you voluntarily resign your admin status, and go through RfA, to show your current knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and to ensure the community has faith in your being an admin?

88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• 1. No, WP:MASSCREATION applies to automated and semi-automated editing only.
• 2. No, not necessary.
• 3. No, that seems to be your true objective.

That said, I'm done with this thread, feel free to comment but I will continue to create articles and otherwise improve the encyclopedia. Dealing with this drama has certainly made editing wikipedia less enjoyable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Given those answers, I ask admins to prevent Carlossuarez46 from creating new pages in breach of policy. Again. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@88.IP, 1) what "harm" is Carlos doing to Wikipedia with this "mass creation" of articles? (WP:HARM unfortunately refers to BLPs only) and 2) review WP:GEOLAND - populated, legally recognized places (such as these villages) are deemed notable. I'm sure they would hold up at AfD. Carlos here has been doing this for a long while without incident, and while his behavior may not be perfect (I don't care about that point), he has explained the policy basis for his actions multiple times to multiple people; and almost everyone who has commented in the section other than you agrees with him. Why won't you learn to drop the stick? First with the section-close edit warring and now here. ₆an⁶sh₆ 06:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ashn66 - he's creating many thousands of articles in a short space of time which do not meet the core principles of WP:V WP:N. Also, he's not obeying policies and guidelines.

Hey, can anyone explain any policy/guideline reasons why it is acceptable to create shite like Mowtowr-e Hajji Cheragh? The reference there shows it (probably) exists, and that's about all. I understand that there's no CSD, and that geo places are somehow 'special', but I don't see it adds anything to the Enclyclopaedia.

And please don't say 'take it to AFD', because we're talking about thousands of articles he's created.

I'm kinda sorta working on a RFC/U and/or Arbcom case, but just seeking opinions - why would anyone think that Mowtowr-e Hajji Cheragh was valid?

Thanks. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you read all of what I wrote, and carefully? ₆an⁶sh₆ 06:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

---anyone who thinks I'm just being a dick, please just look at [32]. Thanks. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(Ansh666, I will read it carefully now and respond soonest) 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ansh666, OK, I will respond to your points in turn;

• 1) what "harm" is Carlos doing to Wikipedia with this "mass creation" of articles?

It dilutes encyclopaedic information. For example, I could find a spreadsheet showing the "winners of the local chess championship in the town of Rachel, Nevada. I could create 1000 articles from it. That would not increase the "sum of all human knowledge" because it'd be massively open to misrepresentation - anyone can create pages showing things like that - and we do not allow them, for good reason. WP:V and so on.

By creating 1000s of poorly-sourced automated articles, he is making wikipedia just a little-bit-less-reliable.

The articles need to show verifiable facts. Adding that 'foobaabazz town' exists (ref a-spreadsheet-that-doesn't-even-exist-any-more, see archive-here) is the weakest imaginable case. It seems to have some special status, because it's allegedly a 'place' in India.

If that is the case, then I can find a spreadsheet from the UK council showing the geo-locations of every pothole in the UK. Are they notable? No, of course not.

He's adding places with a population of zero - and population 'unknown'.

If we allow that, then others can add 'places' like the bottom left corner of Main Street in Birmingham.

There is no WP:V at all.

2) review WP:GEOLAND - populated, legally recognized places (such as these villages) are deemed notable.

OK, Brian is sleeping in my kitchen tonight; can I haz article?

>I'm sure they would hold up at AfD.

We shall see - shall we? That's the wiki way. I'll nominate some as soon as possible. But I need to check them, and I can't check 1000 articles in 1 day - it's just not possible. That's why the wiki is careful about mass-creation.

>Carlos here has been doing this for a long while without incident, and while his behavior may not be perfect (I don't care about that point), he has explained the policy basis for his actions multiple times

Yeah, but, I have explained his behaviour is against several policies many times too.

>to multiple people; and almost everyone who has commented in the section other than you agrees with him.

I don't think that is true. I think lots have sided with him - after all, he's a special-admin, and I'm a humble IP. But at least some have wondered if his blatant disregard for policy and his personal attacks were perhaps 'a bit out of order'.

>Why won't you learn to drop the stick?

Actually, I probably will. Because sadly, I've almost no chance to challenge the entrenched community of admins who defend each other. I probably will just give up, like thousands before me who wanted the wiki to be a better place.

>First with the section-close edit warring and now here. 6an6sh6 06:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I get angry. Then I quit, or get blocked. That's how it goes.

Poor wiki. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, another heavy dose of WP:IDHT and misquoting of policies - inching me closer to leaving this place, unfortunately. May I suggest you actually go and read, in detail, WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Geographic regions, areas and places before you come and try to quote them back to us? Also, Carlos isn't one of those admins that is well known and often-defended (Drmies didn't know he was an admin before yesterday, was it?); being an administrator gives him no special standing in this...dispute. And again, while his behavior hasn't been perfect, his actions outside this thread have been endorsed by everybody who has commented here with the exception of NE Ent and Drmies, who agree in principle with his actions but think that a BRFA would help. As they say, actions speak louder than words. ₆an⁶sh₆ 06:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, admins break policy and guidelines, and an IP is ignored. Actions speak louder than words? What do you suggest I do? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Quoting "IDHT is just lazy in the extreme. I did hear it, and responded. I am more knowledgeable about wiki policy than you.

This is an easy one.

A user is making a shitload (1000s) of pages that don't conform to core policy. We have a policy to deal with that - WP:MASSCREATION - so, he can put in a request, and it can be discussed. That's all.

It seems like he is refusing to do that, hence asking for admin help. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't hat this again, I put the relevant sentence in my edit summary but I'll quote it here again: "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring." - the bolding isn't even mine. ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, between edit conflicts and my internet going out I keep losing edits. Anyways: "I am more knowledgeable about wiki policy than you." - literally every editor who has commented here would disagree with you on this one; seriously. Do you even read what I write? Anyways, as to what you should do, I've said that already: drop the stick. It's clear you aren't going to get consensus on this little crusade of yours. ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your reverting of my comments of this page is outside of policy.

Please don't quote template guides at me, like I'm an idiot.

I'll "drop the stick" if you want to drop editors who care about the wiki. Let me know. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, if you want me to go away, I'll go away. Fine, have it your way. Let me know if you want me to retire, too. [/sarcasm] ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

---

TL;DR - Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs) is creating thousands of articles - between 2 and 10 per minute. About places in Indiasorry, didn't check details; Iran - kinda meant 'India' in the sense of Indian subcontinent but that's wrong, I apologize 88.104.19.233 (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC), apparently based on an archived spreadsheet.

I've asked them to stop to discuss it, per WP:MASSCREATION.

The user has responded, but has refused to stop.

That's about where we're at - an admin refusing to adhere to policy, apparently because they think creating 1000 articles within a day isn't 'mass creation'.

That's what I'm asking admins here to deal with. Is all. The rest is just... well the usual ANI thing. Some users called me a 'sock', some bickered about the ANI itself, and so on. I tried to shut down such things, [33] but meh.

Bottom line - user mass-creating articles without approval. Needs approval. Refuses to apply for it (to date). Is all.

If I were cynical, I'd point out that if the user was not an admin, they'd have been blocked within minutes. But meh.

88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

And if you SLOWED DOWN and PAYED ATTENTION, it would be obvious that they're in Iran (that fundamental a mistake), and that very few people agree with you, and I doubt that the administrator status had anything to do with it. Ok, that's it, I'm done. Bye. ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop shouting, and learn to spell, and I'll bother to respond. Thanks. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The amount of time Carlossuarez46 has spent in this thread is greater than it would cost them to simply follow policy and file a BRFA request. NE Ent 09:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no issue here. If Carlos was creating rubbish, then that's an issue. Oh no, someone's adding new articles to WP. Hold the front page! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Most here seem to be in agreement that this is not automation and does not require a BRFA. Per WP:GEOLAND, these articles are perfectly acceptable. @NE Ent, how about the time time that the IP could be spending improving the encyclopedia that has been wasted drama mongering and beating this issue to death? The IP just needs to drop it and move on, this is getting tiresome. This is exactly how we lose valuable contributors to the encyclopedia. – Connormah (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I just want to chime in that I agree that this does not constitute mass creation as contemplated by rules applying to bots. I would further add that my view, as a disambiguator, is the opposite - the faster we can get all of these articles into the corpus, and their ambiguities hammered out, the better. bd2412 T 16:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that involve errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked." WP:MEATBOT. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• If the above is considered acceptable, it seems I can start mass-creating articles about every household in the UK. They are "populated places", and there's government censor records on them, and other RS such as the telephone directory and the council tax register. There are around 25 million households, so it'll increase the number of articles on Wikipedia more than 5 times. Yay? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Just my POV, but I have questioned the rationale behind having a one or two sentence stub about a village with a dozen or two inhabitants (and most of these are tiny, rural villages not towns or cities). It's like having a Wikipedia entry on every subdivision in every U.S. suburb. Neither are very notable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In some cases, it's even less than that. For example, Mowtowr-e Hajji Cheragh - there is absolutely zero information about that village. All we have is, mention of it in a spreadsheet that was apparently once on an official site, but no longer exists there. The archived version of the spreadsheet doesn't seem to have any official title or anything to show it is authoritative - the header translates as "Census of Population and Housing 1385 (excluding institutional households and nomads)", but that is all.

And the entry for Mowtowr-e Hajji doesn't even have population information - just asterisks, which it says means it has less than 3 households, and the data is excluded "to maintain confidentiality"!

I actually tried to PROD that one, but the prod was removed "per WP:NPLACE" - which I don't understand, because that's just an essay.

The relevant policy seems to be WP:N, and this certainly lacks "significant coverage". 88.104.19.233 (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know it was that bad. This really should be addressed, what merits notability of a location, but there doesn't seem to be a big movement to go in this direction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to close thread and change venue

Since it appears highly unlikely that an admin is going to block Carlossuarez46 on the basis of WP:MASSCREATION, and there is therefore no admin action to be taken, and since the community has failed (three times) to pass specific notability guidelines for populated places, I suggest that an uninvolved admin close this thread, and the discussion be moved to the Notability Noticeboard, since the notability of the articles being created appears to be the only issue remaining. BMK (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Notability noticeboard is dead. The page you linked redirects to WP:N. ₆an⁶sh₆ 00:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm on the schneid today, batting 0 for 2. In any case, notability questions must get decided somewhere else other than here. BMK (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN may help, but that doesn't deal directly with notability issues. ₆an⁶sh₆ 01:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That's disappointing. Please understand, the only reason I asked ANI for help was, he refused to stop and have a discussion about whether they're appropriate. I hoped admins would enforce that principle, in line with policies - if he'd stop, and use BRFA to propose these mass creations, then I'd have a chance to put my case forward regarding specific articles and problems, and others could give their input. But if admins won't do anything, then there's nothing further I can do. *shrug*, no big surprise, but disappointing. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC) ...and, he's already started creating hundreds more. Well, fuck you ANI, this has been a total waste of my time. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC) -and the icing on the cake, you award the disruptive admin with a medal, and refer to me as a bastard. [34] Very classy. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• 88, the major problem here has been the way you've handled the whole case. Whilst the articles and the rate of creation may have been sub-optimal (I doubt anyone has disputed that), as has been pointed out to you multiple times, there is nothing wrong per-se with what they were doing; no evidence of automated creation has been presented, and your comments about creating an article on every household in the UK are not helpful or relevant. Various people have told you this, but you have failed to listen. Carlossuarez's user status is irrelevant in this situation, and they have discussed the issue - here. Multiple times over. The fact that you don't like their answers doesn't make them not exist. I think you need to move away from the dispute, and find something else to do here. In other words, I'm seconding the closure of this extremely long thread. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Luke, it's you that are not listening. I've given policy/guideline based reasons, and there has been no policy/guideline based counterargument.

"nothing wrong per-se with what they were doing" - yes, there is; any large-scale automated or semi-automated article creation task must be approved at WP:BRFA.

"no evidence of automated creation has been presented" - none is needed, because it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that involve errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked.

If he is not using some part of automation, then he's typing at over 9000 words per minute (see his contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.19.233 (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles such as Mowtowr-e Hajji Cheragh clearly does not have the most basic of requirements, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent.

Note, there is nothing in N that excludes places. The only defence given was WP:NPLACE, which is an essay.

So Luke, please respond directly to those points. Explain to me why it is acceptable for the user to break those policies and guidelines, and why I am wrong. Show me a policy or guideline to justify the user continuing to create them, when asked to stop days ago - tell me why they've not been stopped. Thanks. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• General consensus here is that this is not semi-automated or automated; copy-pasting manually does not count any more than using a computer generally does, and you can do that incredibly quickly with a very big monitor/multiple monitors and a lot of tabs open. Looking at my history from yesterday, whilst linking in an article I wrote, I linked it into five articles in one minute, without automation (and that's using Ctrl + F to find the mentions of the subject), so this being copy-paste is perfectly plausible. General consensus is that all recognized settlements that are regarded as villages or higher, if their existence is verifiable, are notable. This is derived from countless AfDs throughout the entire history of Wikipedia. This has all been pointed out to you by various editors, many of whom hadn't even heard of the editor you are complaining about (and I am indeed one of those editors, I believe), so you would be wise to heed the advise. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I can't see any such 'general consensus'.

A couple of previous arbcom cases have discussed what is and isn't "automated" at length, and decided that the exact method doesn't matter - whether it's using copy/paste or AWB or a bot, or whatever. The effect is the same.

I accept that you linked an article to 5 others in 1 minute without automation - I don't see that as a problem. But he is creating 5 (and more) new articles per minute, every minute, for hours.

How can anyone create so many completely new articles in 1 minute and be checking them properly? Humans just can't check that fast. That's why MASSCREATION wants it to be approved beforehand - because it can't be checked by a human as they are being made.

I also cannot see any "general consensus" that all recognized settlements are OK. If that were the case, surely the N policy would have changed, or NPLACE would have been upgraded from an essay. In fact, I think that's been discussed several times but rejected, because there was no consensus. I'd be quite happy if those discussions were re-opened, and maybe a consensus could be found - but, it has not happened yet.

In addition, there is nothing in the reference that supports the claim that these places are indeed villages-or-larger. Unless you're saying that anything listed as "Housing" (and not even a listed value for the 'population') is a "village"? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You say you "can't see any such 'general consensus'"? Well, let's see, those that endorse Carlos's actions (not words) and don't feel the need for a BRFA or something similar (sorry about the pings):

• User:TheCatalyst31
• User:DGG
• User:The Banner
• User:Flat Out
• User:Connormah
• User:Dr. Blofeld
• User:Nyttend
• User:Konveyor Belt
• Me (User:Ansh666)
• User:Lugnuts
• User:BD2412
• User:Lukeno94

Those that endorse Carlos's actions but feel that a BRFA would be helpful or necessary:

• User:NE Ent
• User:Drmies
• User:Mr.choppers

Those that don't endorse Carlos's actions:

• You (User:88.104.19.233)
• User:Liz
• User:Kww

I think that's pretty clear.

As for policies, this is the proper one. I've linked it to you twice above, yet you seem to not acknowledge its existence.

Now, can somebody please close this? This is getting ridiculous. ₆an⁶sh₆ 19:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

My name is Drmies and I endorse this message by Ansh666. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ansh666 + Drmies, WP:NGEO is not a policy. It's an essay. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A bit self-restrain (max. 100 new articles per series, max 2 series a day; excluding talk pages of such articles) should be enough concession to this WP:IDHT-IP. I endorse the request of Ansh666. The Banner talk 20:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No, a complete halt is in order.—Kww(talk) 20:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I came to the thread late, but you can add me the list of people that consider this kind of mass creation of stubs to be misbehaviour, and the concept that this isn't the sort of thing that require BRFA to be laughable. This is obviously mass-creation. I don't actively fight this issue anymore because too many people don't understand the fundamental principal that nothing is inherently notable, but it remains true: nothing is inherently notable, and we should not have stubs about topics when we have no reason to believe that there is substantial coverage in sources about them. All of these mass-created articles should be deleted, and all editors that create them should be cautioned not to do this kind of thing again.—Kww(talk) 20:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Added (for completeness, not that it matters too much). ₆an⁶sh₆ 20:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

On what policies do you base your opinion, Kww? The Banner talk 21:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

My question as well - please point me to the policy that says, explicitly, that "nothing is inherently notable". BMK (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, a reminder to all that the last time ArbCom dealt with the question of sub-stub creation was the Doncram case last March, and at that time they did not find any controlling policy, which lead to this as one of the remedies:

The question of how substantive the content of a stub must be before it can legitimately be introduced to the mainspace as a stand-alone article cannot be decided by the Arbitration Committee. If the project is to avoid the stub guideline becoming a recurring problem in the future, we suggest to the community that this question may need to be decided through a deliberate attempt at conducting focussed, structured discussions in the usual way.

BMK (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:MASSCREATION as policy, WP:N as guideline, plus the knowledge that it was this very kind of behaviour with respect to geodata that lead to the consensus that WP:MASSCREATION becoming policy. As for anything being inherently notable: no class of item has ever been accepted as inherently notable. Even the ones that generally get lenient treatment are given that treatment on the basis of "there must be sources out there", not "this sort of thing requires no sources". The occasional creation of this sort of stub isn't prohibited by policy, mass creation of them is. It serves as a fait accompli, an attempt to overwhelm the completely justified merge and delete discussions. I suspect that the sheer magnitude of articles created by these various geobots and geoscripts over the years is part of the reason that the deletion arguments fail: not because the content is worth keeping, but because there is so much of it that people have grown inured to it.—Kww(talk) 22:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

So, in other words, there is no policy that says that "nothing is inherently notable", merely your own interpretation of the interaction between a policy and an unrelated guideline. In that case, I would suggest that you start labeling it as your opinion when you bring it out, otherwise people might get the idea that you, as an admin, were quoting an actual policy. BMK (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

BMK, I point you to WP:WHYN; you already seem familiar with the GNG part of N, but please note;

"Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject. The primary purpose of these standards is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies.

• We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page

Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles

Also please note that the only mention of the subject-specific notability essays says, Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas - it does not suggest that they override or replace the core notability policy.

You're asking us to prove a negative. That's impossible. N clearly says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article - it doesn't say "...except if it meets the requirements of the content-specific essays". In the same way, it doesn't say "except if it's written by Jimbo". I can't prove a negative; just that there is no policy supporting what you are saying. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No, BMK, it's a simple statement of fact: there is nothing in WP:N or our policies that confers inherent notability on any topic: there is none. In the context of Wikipedia, nothing, nothing at all, has inherent notability. And no, they are not unrelated. The impetus behind the rules on mass creation were exactly the same as this: Fritzpollbot's creation of geographic stubs that did not meet our notability guidelines. It's a cause and effect relationship.—Kww(talk) 22:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps nothing has "inherent" notability - but general consensus, no matter how little you like it (and you made it clear you don't like it) is that settlements classed as villages or larger are always notable, and that a lot of hamlets are as well. This is based on countless AfDs throughout the history of Wikipedia, with very few going against this (and those that did are usually where the village-size is questionable). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Or EVERYTHING is notable. That intersection where those two roads meet? Write a Wikipedia article, it's on a map after all. That casserole your grandmother makes? Well, it came from a recipe in the paper so that means its referenced by a reliable source. And, apparently, every single person who has ever played a professional sport, even for one game, is notable. The problem is that the bar of notability in some areas is set way too high (even notable academics get swiftly deleted) while too low in other areas (a village in Iran with 6 inhabitants has a article?). It's completely inconsistent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Lukeno94, can you explain why you think this somehow immunizes Carlos from the need to get bot approval? We have required bot approval for all other mass creations of geographic articles. That's the reason for WP:MASSCREATION's existence: to get agreement in advance that the source quantity and types used in the mass creation are sufficient. Why do you think that Carlos shouldn't be subject to the same restrictions as Kotninski? Why are Iranian villages different from Polish ones?—Kww(talk) 23:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• MASSCREATION is hardly unambiguous - no definition of "semi-automated" is provided, and most of it is written as addressed to bot-operators, not to non-bot human editors. Assuming that Carlossurarez46 is not a collection of code, it's not at all clear that his actions fall under MASSCREATION. Yes, numerous people have expressed the opinion that it does, but just about as many have disagreed, so this can't be said to be clear-cut. BMK (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's absolutely clear-cut, BMK : "semi-automated" doesn't require paragraphs of definition. There's no way that Carlos could be editing at that speed and volume without an automated boost. No one can type and edit that fast. I don't think that you are arguing in good faith: you approve of Carlos's goal, so you are ignoring clear-cut policy that disapproves of his means.—Kww(talk) 02:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ashn66, I decided to try and do the same as you - to summarize opinions given here. I got this;

• Needs to stop mass creating - at least to explain, discuss, get consensus;

• • 88.104.19.233
  • NE_Ent
  • Resolute ('you can always resume if their complaints are meritless')
  • Drmies
  • bobrayner
  • Liz
  • KWW
  • Reyk (asks you to explain why it is OK)
  • TheCatalyst31 (wants more info and discussion of sources)
  • Scott_Martin (mentioned approval of RamBOT in 2002 - so, this need similar approval?)

(10 users)

• Does not need to stop;
  • Carlossuarez46
  • DGG
  • Flat Out
  • Dr Blofeld
  • Nyttend
  • Konveyor_Belt
  • Mr.choppers
  • Ashn66
  • Lugnuts
  • BD2412
  • Lukeno94
  • The Banner ('What on earth is the problem' - but maybe that has now been explained?)

(12 users)

This indicates we need discussion and consensus before proceeding. I've suggested BRFA many times, but if others think another venue is more suitable, that's fine too.

ANI is certainly not the right place for a discussion. However, it is the right place to force the user to stop, when they have refused to do so. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you still have not explained what the problem is. The main thing I have heard from you is "he has to stop because I demand that" and a lot of WP:IDONTLIKETHAT AND WP:IDNHT. No serious arguments. The Banner talk 23:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You're misconstruing my comments if you think I belong in the first section. I have absolutely no problem with Carlossuarez46's creations; my request for information was to you. You're provided more reasoning for why you want this stopped since then, and I still don't see any need for Carlossuarez46 to stop. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thus, my own suggestion;

Either Carlossuarez46 voluntarily stops to await consensus-outcome elsewhere, or admins block them. (Up to now, he has adamantly refused to stop, and is continuing creation).

Then we can discuss this in an appropriate place, and get the discussions off ANI. We can make it an RfC; maybe people can propose making essays like GEO into actual guideline or policy if they want.

In fact, that's all I've asked for since my first post here. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. In my (and apparently several others) view(s), Carlossuarez46 is doing nothing that would require a block to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. – Connormah (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It would prevent him from running an unapproved bot, which is the point of this entire discussion. He's in blatant violation of our policies about mass creation of articles.—Kww(talk) 23:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you prove he is running a bot? The Banner talk 23:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since when is copy-pasting considered a bot? It still takes human effort to create the articles, unlike a bot, which I imagine could be left running in the background or something of the sort whilst a user performs other tasks. – Connormah (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The only instances that I'm aware of where copying-and-pasting has been considered to be "semi-automated" editing (not being a bot, there is a difference) was when an editor was forbidden from doing anything automated or semi-automated, and the procedure that editor needed to follow was very specifically defined as typing into the edit box by hand. Even then, when he was brought up for violating the sanction for cutting-and-pasting, many editors objected that it wasn't a violation. By that as it may, a bot is automated, scripts are semi-automated, and maybe other methods can be considered to be semi-automated as well, but they are not bots, and there is no way that CS46 is running an "unauthorized bot". To claim that is to distort these definitions well beyond any reasonable interpretation. I doubt very much that a block of CS46 for "running an authorized bot" would stand up to scrutiny for more than extremely short period of time. BMK (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the specific details of the method of creation matters. They're mass-creating thousands of articles that do not meet basic requirements (N). That's all. Arguing semantics seems pointless; surely creating several thousand articles at a rate of many-per-minute is "mass creation" according to any regular interpretation of those words.

That was the conclusion in the arbcom case I think you are referring to - [[35]]. After considerable discussion, it didn't matter whether they were copy-pasting, editing offline with word-macros, using a program written in python, or sending the submissions via carrier pigeon. The effect is the same. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Your call for a block is utterly inappropriate, because regardless of what consensus there is right now, there is simply no way of warping things to say that the consensus is that CS46 is using a bot. Their current editing rate would be perfectly justified by a strong internet connection, and the copy-paste method, with multiple tabs involved. You have been shown (by all bar Kww, pretty much) that your comments about these places do not sit with long-standing consensus. [36] and [37] both seem perfectly valid to me, and they are both sourced well enough (with a source that can be copy-pasted rapidly, without any need of retargetting). You have also been told on multiple occasions that this is not the correct venue for discussing this, and yet you continue to drag this on for a ridiculously long period of time. Why do that, when you've been shown to be out of touch by the majority of editors? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The community has decided that any large-scale automated or semi-automated article creation task must be approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.(emphasis mine) "Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they don't sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that involve errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked." (emphasis mine) NE Ent 01:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hi. Regarding those two articles that you think are 'perfectly valid', I cannot find either موتور 22بهمن or پرويز‎ within that spreadsheet? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe ANI is the correct venue to ask for a block of a user that is creating thousands of articles that do not meet WP:N.

I agree this is not the right place for discussing policies.

You've not shown any policy reason why I am wrong. You say "long standing consensus" - can you show me where?

I have no wish to 'drag this on' - I just want them to stop editing, so we can discuss it in an appropriate place. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Try lines 3027 and 3118. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you tell me exactly what it means by "موتور 22بهمن (موتور جليل ريگي )"?

Sorry, I can't speak Persian. I assume you can, if you are so confident in the sources?

What indicates that it is notable? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that the only reliable source presented for Mowtowr-e 22 Bahman, Sistan and Baluchestan is a spreadsheet that used to exist on an official website (but has been removed) - and that it is listed there.

That is not "significant coverage in reliable sources" - and as explained above, WP:GEO is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline.

You are creating many thousands of similar articles.

They can't be deleted using CSD #A7 because they are places. And PROD doesn't seem acceptable either.(example - even though I dispute that removing the PROD on the basis of an essay is wrong)

That means, they'll have to go through AfD.

How many thousands have you made?

Do you really not agree that these invalid articles, resulting in several-thousand AfDs, is disruptive? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

88, you really need to drop the stick and stop beating this dead horse. Regardless of what Kww has said, there is clearly not going to be a block of CS46 over this, you've repeated your charges ad infinitum and they're not carrying the day, your intransigence is verging on IDHT territory, and is beginning to be disruptive. No one is carrying your banner here – you have some moral support, but no one's stepped up to take the weight with you. I respectfully suggest you need to back away from this idee fixe and find something productive to do. BMK (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No, BMK, you really need to stop defending the indefensible. Carlos is clearly violating policy, and it's unfortunate that a small group of editors is disrupting all reasonable dicussion of his misbehaviour by clinging to fig-leafs like "he may just be cutting and pasting really fast". He's not. He's making automated or semi-automated edits in clear violation of our bot policy,.—Kww(talk) 02:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Kww, you're not doing yourself or 88 any favors here. There are already serious doubts about your judgment as an admin, you shouldn't get yourself into an even deeper hole by stating as fact that which has not been established as fact, and putting forward your opinion as black-letter policy. It may come as some surprise to you that your saying that something is so does not, in fact, make it so. I suggest that you either produce some real evidence or stop making unsupported assertions and throwing your weight around. BMK (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Tell me with a straight face that you believe that no automation is involved with Carlos's edits. I don't think you can, and if you can, I think it casts serious doubts on your judgement. He's using automation at some level. There's no way to achieve this volume and speed without it.—Kww(talk) 03:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for your evidence that he's using a bot, Kww. And there is no "clear" violation of any policies here unless you can prove so. – Connormah (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

"Not using a bot" is a strawman argument, clearly refuted by the explicit wording of the policy statements I've posted above with relevant sections bolded. NE Ent 03:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Same comment to you as to BMK: you can't seriously be making the argument that there is no automation involved in this volume and rate of edits.—Kww(talk) 03:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is equivocal. BMK (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I can make manual edits at a much faster rate than Carlos if I had a mind to. Tabbed browsing is amazing, you should try it some time. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've posted about 75 already written articles here User talk:Carlossuarez46/Khash Copy and paste the articles after each stub template into twenty open 20 tabs on your browser hitting save each time. Amazing, even you can do it - no script, no python, no automation - simply write your article beforehand and put it in mainspace when its ready. This is getting tiresome. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care how you're making them, as I said above. It's just the fact that you're making a lot of them, and they don't meet N.

I'm not sure how to resolve this discussion - and I am tired of it too. I'm tempted to send one of the articles to AfD, but 2 things are making me hesitate; 1. I'll probably be accused of "forum-shopping", and 2. You'll probably create 1000+ more of them while we're discussing the deletion of the single example. Especially if the discussion in the AfD gets as long as this has.

I'm open to ideas... 88.104.19.233 (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. One quick question while I remember - how are you getting the Anglicised versions of the Persian names given in the spreadsheet? Do you have any source that shows the Anglicised names, or are you translating them yourself, or what? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:DUCK applies: if you are sitting at your computer doing your best to pretend to be a bot for hours at a time, you are a bot. WP:MASSCREATION still applies, and your edits are still disruptive, Carlossuarez46: the time to get consensus about what kind of sources thousands of articles require is before they are created, not after. That's the whole point of limiting mass creation of articles: get a consensus as to what kind of sources an article about a tiny Iranian hamlet requires and what the template should look like. The last time the topic was specifically discussed, the consensus was 2:1 that a geodata item and a census entry was insufficient sourcing to create an article.—Kww(talk) 13:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sheesh. Somebody close this. This is ANI, FFS, where incidents requiring administrative action are reported. There is no incident here: if there is, there's thousands of them. BMK is correct: no one is going to block Carlos as a result of this discussion, and this was the wrong venue for a larger discussion to begin with--which hasn't stopped anyone. Kww may well have a point about a lack of inherent notability (and the constant question "where's the policy that says that" from both sides is getting tedious) but this discussion here, which should have ended a long time ago, will not answer the more general questions. So please, someone close this behemoth and archive it, and continue this elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Good idea. I recommend WP:BRFA NE Ent 13:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRFA is, indeed, the correct place for this discussion, and Carlossuarez46 needs to stop creating these things until that discussion is complete.—Kww(talk) 13:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violation of editing restriction by CensoredScribe

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.

---

CensoredScribe (talk · contribs) from 18:02 to 19:09 CS added the categories Category:Films featuring puppetry or Category:Television programs featuring puppetry to more than 15 articles. Earlier today CS also added the cat Category:Fictional weapons of mass destruction to several articles. This would seem to be a violation of the restrictions that were agreed to in this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829#CensoredScribe above. As usual most of these additions ignore the guidelines WP:DEFINING as well the fact that sourced info needs to be in the article before the cat can be added. More than one editor has mentioned the fact that CS should read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH yet the edits performed ignore both of these. We have had more than one thread regarding these edits in the last week or so and at the end of them CS seems to accept the restrictions agreed upon. Within a day or two CS returns to the old editing patterns. This shows WP:COMPETENCE problems. (Redacted) MarnetteD | Talk 02:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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

CensoredScribe back at violating editing restrictions after previous block

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

---

And as soon as the previous block expires, CensoredScribe is back at making mass changes to categories again.[38][39][40][41][42][43][44] 24.149.117.220 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This comes after several different editors expressly explained his situation to him on his talk page. At this point I'm not convinced in the slightest that things are going to change. GRAPPLE X 01:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Again? Already? Having read through the long thread at User talk:CensoredScribe where CS entirely fails to understand why the last block was imposed [45], I would like to make a formal proposal that CensoredScribe be indefinitely blocked from editing, as clearly lacking the necessary competence to contribute to wikipedia in any useful capacity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, Floquenbeam already blocked CensoredScribe for a month, with the warning that next block will be indefinite. I think that's enough for now. But I think I share Andy's skepticism that any of this is sinking in. CensoredScribe seems to not take any of this seriously, given their apology to dragons and quoting Darth Vader in the recent request to clarify the topic ban. -- Atama頭 19:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, set his restriction to "CensoredScribe may not add or remove categories from articles under any circumstances. They may only suggest adding or removing categories on the article talk page but must include specific references in support of adding any categories, but may suggest category changes to no more than one article per day." Don't even let him play around with categories. The talk page thing is a bone to see if they can improve. If they can't, that can be removed as well. Ravensfire (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't even want to allow that much (the talk page stuff); there is no value whatsoever to this person's input into categorization. Categorizing JRR Tolkien's One Ring as a "Fictional WMD" makes my brain go all wibbly-wobbly. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I've had to re-block without talk page access, their recent contributions really aren't much more than trolling. If a month off doesn't help, I definitely think an indef block is warranted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In the mean time, should the topic ban be expanded to include all changes, additions, deletions, and any other changes to categories? Essentially dropping the "mass" wording from the topic ban's language as well as the exception for any one article that he is focused on editing specifically. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• That would make sense, but for all practical purposes the exact scope and wording of the topic ban no longer really matter. As it stands CensoredScribe has exhausted the community's patience and goodwill to the point that ANY disruptive editing, including but not limited to messing with categories, trolling, or even just wasting the community's time will be dealt with by a swift indef block that no admin in their right mind would undo. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would be very surprised if anyone objected to an indefinite block - it probably would've gotten widespread support if it had been enacted this time around! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say after a month off the next move is just skip the whole indef discussion and just put up a CBAN review. It's pretty obvious that CS just doesn't it despite the repeated clubbings with the cluebat.Blackmane (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Since the user is blocked without even talk page access, it's yet to be seen whether this block has been instructive at curbing CS's reckless behavior. Let him/her be judged on their edits after the block is over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Lord of Rivendell

This user is being extremely disturbing. He got blocked two times before (check User talk:Lord of Rivendell for proof).

My first complaint is his edit sprees without consulting any other users in talk page and not obeying the plurarity rules. In Turkey article he keeps doing edits as he likes (see Turkey: Revision history for his edits and see Talk:Turkey about the other editor's complaints about him). Now he sees me as his enemy and began to conflict with my edits, throwing mud at me. (i think he is getting obsessed with me)

My second complaint about him is his racism and his nonsense slander on calling me associated with a terrorist organisation. If you go to the page [46] you can definitely see that he is saying those words; (I began to suspect that KazekageTR is a Turkish-speaking Kurd (probably associated with the PKK or DHKP-C, etc, i.e. an "extreme-left" militant organization) whose sole intent is to deface Turkey-related articles.). (by the way I've a Meskhetian Turk origin) First of all, i've made huge improvements on Turkey-related articles. For example i've completely renewed the page Modern equipment and uniform of the Turkish Army and significant edits on Turkey etc.. Secondly, i've got very upset because of a comment like that. I'm not a terrorist and no one calls me a terrorist one way or another. And what he did is racism and totally not acceptable.

Thank you for your consideration. KazekageTR (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting notification of this thread: "Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. And check your watchlist you racist."--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

And then there's the WP:CANVASSING: [47] and [48].--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There is an exception for notifying concerned editors; I think that being called an "asshole" without provocation makes me one of them.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected the way that i've notified him cause i was very angry at the moment. And about those two users, they were the ones who recently got problem with Lord pf Rivendelll. I've simply asked help for my first complaint. There is nothing wrong with it. And did you read my compliants by the way? KazekageTR (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If you were angry, you should have used the default notification message ({{ani-notice}}) to avoid showing bad faith. Epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

KazekageTR has been accurate in his complaints. Rivendell's behaviour has made it very challenging for other editors to make any contributions to the Turkey article, he continuously monopolises the editing space (he has made over 300 edits to that article in less than 50 days) and initiates edit wars when "his" revision is altered. His unwillingness to reach a consensus for his sweeping changes is made much worse by his evident battleground mentality (see diff, diff, diff), which is ultimately the bigger problem here. To Rivendell everything is a confrontation, he may leave forever one day only to carry on his battling the next.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Although KazekageTR is right in his complaints, he may be wrong in the way that he phrased his complaints. Epicgenius (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Well i don't think that me calling him as a racist isn't bad. Cause he sees the issue of being a Kurd as a something to get 'suspected' and i believe that is racism. Are we on the same page here User:Epicgenius?? And if you check the edit histories of those pages we've conflicted in (especially in Turkey), you will see that i was understandable, patient and tolerant to him. I've always stated those Wikipedia rules that he wasn't obeying in my edit summary or in the talk page. By the way because i was reverting his reckless edits, he started to be my enemy(like i said on the top) and opened up a section here in order to block me from editing. The admin found me innocent and warned him instead. After one/two weeks from that event, he got blocked. KazekageTR (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are on the same page, but you shouldn't assume bad faith. Epicgenius (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If i was assuming bad faith, things would go way different believe me mate. By the way thank you for your interest, we can use your thoughts on this issue, of course if you state them... KazekageTR (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, but I find that it's better to get over having "enemies" if you want to continue to be a productive editor on Wikipedia. I understand that there are going to be times when you feel challenged and provoked, but try to not get caught up in revenge, squabbling and holding grudges. If it gets really bad, work on different articles on WP and keep your distance. Having enemies can be a quick way to slide into edit warring which can result in a block or, eventually, an indefinite block. When it comes down to "disruptive editing", admins don't want to spend time sorting out who is right and who is wrong, they'll just block your account because of your behavior, not the content of your edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My "problem"s with Lord of Rivendell have been limited to normal editing disputes, I have not encountered the personal attacks noted above. I do agree with KazekageTR that throwing around Kurd as an insult is not a positive trait. On the editing front, it is true that Lord of Rivendell makes long series of edits, but it's also true (as they pointed out on Talk:Turkey) that they in the past reverted edits by others which were just copy-pastes into the article from other articles made without attribution. In general, it would be useful if the talkpage was more used in conjunction with editing (and it has begun to be more used lately). I get the feel of increasing escalation over the past month. Lord of Rivendell should be strongly informed that throwing around insults is not an action conductive to a collegial editing environment (KazekageTR I assume has taken note that reacting by calling someone racist is not the most helpful move), and from that point if editors manage to keep a cool head and discuss things, I see no need for immediate blocks. CMD (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not limited to Rivendell, but calling someone a Kurd as an insult is pretty racist.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm not suggesting any action actually be taken against KazekageTR for that outburst, and wouldn't even if they hadn't gone back and changed it. CMD (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well User talk:Liz, so you're saying that provocation is something like 's*hit happens' ??. You cant just insult or try to insult a person like that. I can call you a terrorist and 'suspect' that you are a Jew and it is okay too? Look at [49] he is provoking me again by the way.

And that section is not just about this insulting thing, if you check my first compliant you'll see that he is not a cooperative person and often making trouble that bothers us all. By the way it wasn't just happened now, it happened so many times. Please refer to Turkey article for further information.KazekageTR (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As I already said, this is not restricted to any one editor, I'm not singling out Rivendell or anyone else because I have seen this kind of behavior too often while contributing to Turkey-related articles to dismiss it as an individual flaw of character. But all too often when someone makes an edit to an article about Turkey, they will come across someone who will say, you have added/removed this and that to make our country look bad, you must be a Kurd! I don't know Kazekage's ethnic origin and I don't want to know it, but I can imagine that having to read such mindless tripe can make even the most level-headed editors lose their cool. So when someone retorts that this is racism, it might not be ideal editing behavior, but does it mean that they are to blame? Is that what our admins seriously think?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

KazekageTR, this is just my personal point of view. Go ahead, call me a terrorist, I know that I'm not and it makes you look ridiculous for using over-the-top language. However, if you are calling me a terrorist because you think I'm Jewish, then you (or any editor) is guilty not only for being ridiculous but showing bias and not having a neutral point of view.

But, and I think this is where we differ, although no one likes people to say hostile and negative things to them online, insults do not affect what I think of myself. If someone attacked me, I'd report it if it was a personal attack (as defined by Wikipedia policy), not because it hurt my feelings. If someone attacks you, it reflects badly on them, not you. And, I'm guessing, that most longtime editors at Wikipedia do not believe insults thrown around on WP because it's a sign of an immature editor and one who will get a warning and perhaps a limited block. Do not feel like you have to respond to insults unless they cross the line into a personal attack. Otherwise, I'd recommend rising above it and keep focusing on editing, not getting into personal grudges. You'll be happier, too, if you have a thicker skin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well how about that. He is teasing me again User:Liz, check [50], it is a personal attack indeed. Do you need any further proofs ?

• The question you asked proves that you are not a Turk.

I think this is an unnecessary edit summary and I would call it an insult (that is, if you are Turkish, I don't know) but not as an personal attack. I think this merits a warning on his user talk page but unless this is continued harassment over a period of time, it's unlikely to earn him/her a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a clear and direct personal attack. It's a direct continuation of his accusation (so to speak) that KazekageTR is a Kurd. Furthermore, the idea shown by the editor, that one shouldn't be editing the article simply due to ones origins, is not a collaborative attitude. CMD (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a really serious crime in the terms of law as you know. That is pure racism, fascism. Well I dont know what the hell he wants from my ancestorial backgorund(I already said him im not Kurd, my family has Meskhetian Turk origin.) And CMD is totally right. He is reverting my edits because he is obsessed with my race. That is totally unacceptable.

Whooa he is on an edit spree again ([51]) and he does not obey the rules that we made on talk page. Now he is typing Turkish,to his summary 'Herşey yalan, bunlar gerçek' which means 'Everything is lie, these are truth.'([52]). It is an edit which violates. Do you need further proofs to say that he is not cooperative person mate? Are you just going to say ok to his senseless edits/comments/trash talks ? WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT KazekageTR (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't comment on his edits on the Turkey article but just looking over his contributions, he does leave some hostile and taunting remarks in his edit summaries to other editors that warrants a warning from an admin.

But I don't agree with your accusations of "fascism" and as far as "racism"? As far as I know, Turks and Kurds are different ethnic groups, not races. I don't see the insult but I agree that trying to identify the ethnic background of editors and imply that this is the basis of bias is inappropriate and has no place on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

My first complaint about him was his reckless edits like i said. He is not clicking the undo button but reverts our edits manually(i believe he does it for avoiding another block). I've summoned CMD and Underlying lk as victims of his edit sprees on Turkey article.

We often use racism with fascism(like idioms) in Turkish language, thats why i wrote racism too(i know it is not applicable in this situation).

As you have noticed, it is a personal harassment and it is a very disturbing one indeed, and it is wrong to get obbsessed with someones ethnical backgorund and imply that in a bad way. That is not something to get along with. KazekageTR (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Somali editor User:Middayexpress doesn't want human rights mentioned on Somalia page

Hi, I'm having some problems. I stumbled upon an editor who it seems is a long-time guard of pages related to Somalia.

User:Middayexpress does not like references to the page Human rights in Somalia being made on other Somalia pages. I don't know what the editors motivation is.

• [53]

• [54]

• [55]

I think this is pretty unreasonable. Hey, it might be OK in Somalia, but this is wikipedia.

Thank you, Zoompte (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The newly registered Zoompte account is a sock of the indefinitely blocked User:Andajara120000. The trademark breathless edits, anti-religious pov, anti-Somali/anti-Ethiopian pov, and obsession with associating the Tutsi Bantus with Nilo-Saharan populations are all the same. Identical obscure edits on the same otherwise quiet pages as well (see for example here and here). He's also clearly quite familiar with Wikipedia protocols, unlike actual newbies. Middayexpress (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not anti-Somali. Well, I might be now, after meeting you. :) Zoompte (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

New user (or old person with new account) can you please provide me with the evidence of you trying to use the TK page to resolve this matter. You are reporting something but you are engaged in an edit war against what looks like a stable article. --Inayity (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi yes, I've written on the talk page for Somalia. Zoompte (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries such as the one where you wrote "Repaired content removed by a Somali Muslim editor" are unacceptable. Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why? Zoompte (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Since we are to focus on content and not the contributors.

Please take sock allegations to WP:SPI. They have the tools to confirm. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, hat has already been done. AcidSnow (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Unrelated, according to CU. Middayexpress, I'm afraid you can't simply revert with the sock accusation. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I never asked for CU; a clerk felt that the difs were compelling enough to warrant one. Socking was also not the main reason I and the other editors reverted, as we explained elsewhere. It was actually pov-pushing (e.g. labeling a 1909 map of British East Africa as "British Kenya", though British Kenya was actually established over a decade later, in 1920). Middayexpress (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Recommend IBAN for TreCoolGuy and TDFan2006

These two have been at it for months, and even with TreCoolGuy's recent block, TDFan2006 intentionally left bordering-on-harassment messages on Tre's talk page. Additionally, TDFan2006 has consistently reminded TreCoolGuy of a previous SPI, and previously added a note to his own user page that he was keeping an eye on TreCoolGuy. These conversations have led me to highly recommend an IBAN between these two users, as very few (if any) of their interactions have been positive. See [56], [57] (the DrummerSL is a nod at the SPI), and after Tre removed the nod, TDFan replied with this, [58], [59] (which was later reverted. For what it's worth, the interactions largely seem to be TDFan2006 finding ways to provoke TreCoolGuy. gsk 20:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not just trying to make Tre feel like a guilty bast... whoops, gotta be careful about what I say. Anyway, I'm not just trying to make Tre be guilty, I was just saying that his comment wasn't really civil, he should change comments via guidelines and that he has been confirmed a sock... uhh.. oh yeah, a sock master. TDFan2006 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your comments are not "bordering-on-harassment", they are harassment. See m:Don't be a dick (no that is not an insult, it's a link to an essay on obnoxious behavior) and leave TreCoolGuy alone. -- John Reaves 21:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you being bias and just being on Tre's side? TDFan2006 (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I doubt there's a bias or "being on sides" if more than one editor notices your behavior. Of course, saying things like "guilty bast..." do not help your situation at all. gsk 21:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course not In fact, I’ve blocked him before, that’s why I even saw your edits on my watchlist. -- John Reaves 21:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Come on, everyone calm down. Was TreCoolGuy's comment on my talkpage civil? No, not even slightly; it was pure trolling, hence why I removed it. I probably could've said my bit a bit more neutrally, but there we go. TDFan2006, you need to back off TCG, and I suggest unwatching his talk page and refraining from commenting there unless invited. It is fair to note that TDFan has only ever commented on TCG's talk page once outside of this topic; which was [60]. Not particularly nice, but understandable. I think this is Much Ado About Nothing, at least for now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would like a permanent interaction ban from TDFan2006 for harassment. He keeps on reminding me that I'm a sockpuppeter and asked me which you can check on my talk page You have been confirmed a sockmaster. Why haven't they blocked you?... He told me on his talk page which I questioned him about was why he said that he was keeping an eye on me and another user. Which is very stalker like words to say. Then just recently TDfan went to my talk page and called me DrummerSP. Personally I don't like to be reminded about the mistakes I have made in the past but he keeps on bringing it up. So please put a permanent block on him. - TreCoolGuy, 19 February 2014
• I'm having a look at this as well. The comments here by TDFan are way out of line, that's for sure. But I'd like to find out something else first--Admrboltz, what precisely was the reason for the last block? I looked through a whole bunch of TreCoolGuy's edits and didn't see the vandalism, though I saw what could be considered not OK, maybe. They asked you twice on their talk page for the reason and didn't get an answer, and I'm curious myself. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• I thought this was odd too, and when looking through Tre's recent edits, I couldn't find a justification for the block either. gsk 05:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• The block itself was justified to some degree (although probably a little later than it should've been) - the vandalism occurred when they slapped the block tag on Rusted Auto Part's user page, but that was a while ago. Unconstructive editing, however, is what they should've been blocked for (and the gem on my talkpage is only one example of that.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, TDFan just took a break, which could be very convenient. We're not going to block TDFan, though I see no reason why we can't tell them that they should stop these "reminders"; GSK has already pointed out that this is harassment. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not taking a wikibreak until tomorrow. I just felt a bit uncomfortable. TDFan2006 (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, doesn't look like Tre deserved the block. Epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I see that Admrboltz is back after a few days off. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry... New job has been keeping me busy. In reviewing the block, I believe I may have erred in judgement. The user was originally reported to WP:AIV but in reviewing the edits closer, I was in error. --AdmrBoltz 04:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for reviewing. I'd appreciate it, and I think TreCoolGuy would too, if you left them a note. As for the matter at hand, TDF has apologized on TCG's talk page. I don't see much reason for an IBAN, if there ever was enough for such a heavy-handed measure as an IBAN (I doubt this), to enact one now. This thread is fizzling out but it would be nice if both editors came back here with a comment or two and we can settle this and file the paperwork. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Mass IP spamming on AFD

ON #wikipedia-en-help an helper directed my attention to this AFD discussion which seems to have multiple IPs Spamming Keep. Given that Geolocate places the Ips to Israel this seems like a classic case of IP hoping. I propose that this AFD is semi-protected .--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• I only see three "keep" comments from IP users in that AfD, and two of those are from the same IP address. The appearance of only two different IP address users in a discussion doesn't seem to be a "mass" amount of IP-hopping that would require semi-protection. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• There's a third keep now also from an unsigned IP user, very similar language in the Keep justification, but now from a mobile device in Tel Aviv rather than a desktop device in northern Tel Aviv. I suspect Jeffrd10 is correct. Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• There's also a German IP, so I don't know that they're all the same person. Unless there's a deluge of IPs though, I wouldn't worry about it too much. -- Atama頭 18:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• There are however at least three in Tel Aviv - and they seem to be keeping at it. And they seem to be SPAs.Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would say it's likely that if they're not all the same person they're at least meatpuppets. It's pretty rare to see IP users participate in deletion discussions for articles they didn't create themselves, and add to that that this article was created two days ago, it seems unlikely that there's such a mass of "foot traffic" that three random people would all happen upon it, then make nearly identical comments. I think it's telling that the first IP user (the one who created the page) made two totally different comments in the article. Likely that was before he realized that his IP would be visible and he was hoping to pretend to be more than one person.

That said, it's not like these discussions are majority rules, so it doesn't really matter how many times they !vote. If anything it's hurting their case. It's probably a good idea to keep an eye on these IP addresses, though, since it's pretty blatant puppetry of some sort. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I was tempted to make the same suggestion. Sometimes a bad "keep" argument just strengthens the "delete" arguments. And if the IPs come up with good arguments to keep the article, then their argument should be heard. The only time we need to be concerned is if the AfD gets flooded and turns it into a mess. I wouldn't want to be the admin to sort through that when closing. (I won't be since I !voted already but still.) -- Atama頭 19:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The IP votes aren't exactly relentless or anything, but they don't seem to be abating. Is there any precedent for grouping all the IP votes together, or does that seem like it's stacking the deck too much? I know in RfCs sometimes they group by support/keep. Doing that would have the same effect as grouping the IP votes together, since all keep votes (save one) are from IP users. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 21:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen IP !votes grouped together. Generally we let them stay as they're added in a deletion discussion, and let them stay as-is, though you can strike multiple !votes from the same editor, or strike !votes from a banned user or sockpuppet of a blocked user (essentially, strike any !votes that are improper). That's already being done, so we should be good. -- Atama頭 23:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

IP 75.52.186.148

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.

---

We have an evident problem with IP 75.52.186.148 (contributions [61]), who seems to have been spreading highly dubious WP:OR throughout multiple articles for some time (mostly relating to Germany, freemasonry, Ayrians and the usual conspiracy-theory hogwash). Given that this IP is now making bizarre accusations regarding User:Paul Barlow [62][63], I think a block is a foregone conclusion. I'd also suggest a rollback of all the IP's 'contributions' would be advisable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ask Gnostrat, etc. if I have been an unhelpful presence here. I have created tons of articles and supplemented others of low quality with the knowledge I have - simply lacking a library in my hands at every millisecond.

So my judicial murder is a foregone conclusion? That is the jurisprudence of Wikipedia?

I am willing to mellow out and follow the policies concerning original research. I have nothing to be ashamed of - the fringe and "evil"-type subjects I deal with is a form of personal psycho-catharsis in my own quest for understanding the problem of evil. I demonstrate utterly lucidity of intellect, and to constantly disparage and depersonalize me in belittling, scornful terms, and be "monitored" by P.I.'s, I find ridiculous.

Is the editorial council here prepared to even listen to me...?

There is no evident problem. Is this an examination or as you said, a "foregone conclusion"?

A rollback is simply gratuity of meanness. The ratio of quality versus negativity I have created is highly tilted in my favor.

Your personal lack of proper emotional detachment unfortunately similarly urges me to ask for any OBJECTIVE, DISPASSIONATE assessor or "justiciar" to supplant you. Good day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk • contribs)

Are all of the 75.52.186.148 edits yours ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland - NO. I believe both myself and those who personally dislike me here are trying to figure out what is happening. I personally am computer-illiterate. I believe my I.P. is not static.

I shall abide by the registration suggestion given here, in order to make less complex some of the confusion, the next time I contribute.

On the other hand, ill-mannered and belligerent, bullying psy-ops tactics to silence others on the part of individuals or editorial syndicates, I firmly do not believe is moral and ethical.

Below, I do not even know what this individual is talking about... "Banned editor?" How could I even type this then?

Then choosing to accelerate things and pretend I am a fringe conspiracy-theorist and anti-Semite, a mental fallacy Wikipedia must uproot. I was not referring to Judaism, but the British nationality of the editor, in puckish or impish affect. The tone did not come out right across the Internet.

shall correct my imperfections, and perhaps others can be less imperious, on the other hand?

Does that sound fair?

Next time I edit an article, I, beforehand, shall obtain a registered account and cite and substantiate all nice and scholastic.

But no psy-ops can be hatched against me simply because I am a controversialist. And we know even editorial councils are not beyond human imperfection. No injustice is all I ask. Is that fair?

Thank you for preventing judicial murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk • contribs) 21 February 2014‎

"monitored by P.I.s"? Look, despite my high position among the Elders of Anglo-Zion I haven't a clue who you are. If I have been reverting your edits for ten years, as you claim, that's probably because your behaviour has been unchanged over that period. Assuming you are not a banned editor, your best approach is to create a username and to prepare contributions with citations supporting your assertions. Paul B (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've looked at a couple of edits and HFS, that's some dense talk, with sentences that are hard to parse: "Germanenorden...was an intransigently right-wing, anti-Judeo-Masonic, völkisch secret society and simultaneously, in the deeper degrees of the society of monied officers capable of supplying arms and munitions, a "crypto-guerrilla" or atypical counter-espionage vigilance committee", that's bad already, but this edit (in Beati Paoli), is incomprehensible: check the paragraph starting "In 1071", for such pearls as "Scientific documentation in either direction relating to these questions is utterly befogged; and myth and reality blended so intricately, objective conclusions meet scholarly limitations". Dangling and ambiguous modifiers are all over the place, every noun needs an adjective needs an adverb needs another adverb--holy moly. But yes, at heart, in terms of Wiki policy, is the problem of reliably sourcing these edits, and one wonders if such statements are ever verified. The various personal attacks are just that, hot air, but disruptively so. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You do not assume a neutral tone here, Sir. Please try to be civil.

I shall try when I open an account to render my bad style and bad lexicon into "popularized" acceptable accessibility, alright? Do you know that not every person on earth had English as their first language? I shall improve, but in an atmosphere of hostility where I am not given the chance, the greater disruption belongs to those who lack objectivity of perception such as yourself. You disrupt my attempt to civilly deal with this, and I do no appreciate it -

The content they are adding, despite being pure walls of unparsable text, is unencyclopaedic. It's the contents of essays or dissertations, not an encyclopaedia, and is full of original research, individuals analysis and purely conclusions the editor has come to presented erroneously as fact. I also note that in November they "abandon Wikipedia in despair," so not sure why they're back. Canterbury Tail talk 20:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Further evidence of the conspiratorial nonsense being posted by this IP can be found in the history of our Dextroamphetamine article[64]:

"As of the moment, the Russian-Israeli mafia criminal enterprise operation, half-Mossad, half-McMafia in personnel, masked as the corporate cartel "TEVA" has achieved gangland supremacy in its diversion and distribution activities done in the shadows; and all the more creditably, TEVA has wrestled against the FDA in victory; and now openly celebrates its anarchistic piracy morality of materialistic profiteering in its conquering manipulation of the generic ADHD, psychostimulant market in America, and now holds sovereign robber-baron imperial possession to price-gouge and skyrocket to infinity the DEXEDRINE of old, once the balm to confused minds of suffering individuals. One can only bow in obeisant submission unto TEVA."

I cannot see how anyone who thinks that Wikipedia is an appropriate platform for such drivel could possibly become a useful contributor. The IP has incidentally also come to the notice of Wikiproject:Philosophy [65] as a result of dubious edits to our article on Schopenhauer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Every time I reply, my words are deleted. What is this? I am asking for fairness.

I did not write the stuff about TEVA. I am not interested in pharmaceuticals.

Why am I not being allowed to even have a fair hearing? This is crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk • contribs) 21 February 2014‎

The section title "collapsed section" of the talk page of Dextroamphetamine contains the following statement which seems consistent with the conspiracy theories you have been outlining today:

I am half-Jewish and half-Central European, so the "anti-Semitic" nonsense please do not even initiate with me, Wikipedians of ideological extremism. I can outshine and outgeneral in cerebral dialectics of counter-propaganda programming and deprogramming, generate psychological influence and unleash psy-warfare most of humankind except elite special forces cannot handle. I am speaking to you, the "frequently contributing" dominant minority of Zionist cyber-guerrillas wielding editorial-managerial power, unfortunately endlessly trying to schizophrenically scramble all objectively forthright discussion of any and all "Jewish cultural affairs", as a psy-op military tactic."

Is the above passage written by you? Paul B (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're just falling victim to edit conflicts, that's all. Canterbury Tail talk 20:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Whaaaaat? Edit conflict my eye. YOU removed a chunk of his words with this edit only just over an hour ago. His editing is problematic, sure, but he was asked a question and was entitled to answer it. I restored it. Moriori (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup, edit conflict. Took me three tries to get my comment in as I kept getting edit conflicts and mine were disappearing. Yes it looks bad, but edit conflicts can cause that unfortunately. I would never remove someone's comment like that, everyone is entitled to say their piece. Canterbury Tail talk 20:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Edit conflicts do that sometimes. Particularly on busy pages like WP:ANI. Please don't confuse matters with unnecessary accusations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this post [66] yours? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I am now being subject to DNS attacks and viruses violently. I do not know what is happening but this does not reflect well on Wikipedia. Moriori was honorable enough to fairly and equitably notice the little bit he could of whatever is happening... I am retiring for the moment.

To repeat: it appears as if a complex game of impersonation and sophisticated manipulation, among other things, is operative. I am not a pharmacist.

Wikipedia, sort yourself out. Now I have to get my computer fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 21 February 2014‎

This looks like a static IP to me. It's been editing Julius Evola since October 2012, a pattern of large additions and deletions of content is constant from the beginning, with the added content being very dense. Sorry, editing about Evola since July 2011.[67] - edits about Special Forces, repeatedly talking about anti-Semitism, it's the same person all along. I think that most of his edits have been reverted as unsourced. I don't believe the statement that he/she didn't write the edit mentioning Teva. I think a nice long block is in order. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I have circumvented the cyber-attacks (I shall not mentioned whence derived these missiles), but there is no consistency of subject-matter, no ideational clustering validating any stasis of chronicity. If you look into the I.P.'s past, he/she was advocating pedophilia rights and violent Stalinism one month, and then talking about widely disparate subjects, radical right groups, etc., another: your emotionally-driven campaign to terminate my presence is not juridically substantive.

As my I.P. is bouncy, I suppose you can ban this one I am temporarily on - but one day I shall come back on a stable connection in hardcore university doctorate mode with a credible registered account, and my controversies I fearlessly plunge into I shall not fail to explore: you are merely trying to repressively assign me utlagatus status because I occasionally delve into un-PC topics. No grounds for banning, sorry.

I see many of the actual edits I made have now been summarily deleted. I suppose the judicial lynching is proceeding behind-close-doors appropriately. The truth will always win, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Yes, unsourced, incomprehensible, unencyclopedic, essay-like original research will almost always be deleted, as it should. BMK (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, regardless of any other issues, anyone who writes about "ideational clustering validating [a] stasis of chronicity" deserves to be blocked from Wikipedia (and probably the entire internet) for crimes against the English language. On the plus side, such prolix bollocks is easy enough to spot... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Prolixity is not an ethical defect. Being a knave for the sake of being a brutal knave bullying others, is. I ask whoever is in power to curtail the endless ad hominem thrust against me by these persons.

Nope. I indicated my deficiency above and agreed to "reform" - now people are merely treating me like a caged beast, picking on me like children. I say: you can ban this I.P., but my drive for truth and fearlessness shall never die; and I shall strive to spread the truth of things to others according to my limits.

I do not know why there is a discussion right now, except for the excessive animosity of one or two individuals. I have agreed to pacifically reform and register, "mechanized", the next time I do so -

Please, study the I.P. history thoroughly, it is INSANE. Obviously not one personality. How can you go from advocating pedophilia (!), Leninist socialism and violent communism to being the Julius Evola apologist extraordinaire? The rationale fails here as a criterion of judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope, we've had editors before who are just playing with Wikipedia/us. Dougweller (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I'm pretty sure they're not here to do anything but entertain themselves. This has to be an act. -- Atama頭 22:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, the IP's history makes entire sense if all the editor is trying to do is harm the encyclopedia for the lulz. BMK (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. If you've been editing for ten years, as you say you have, you should have learned to do that by now. You type four "tildes" (~~~~) at the end of your posts and the ip address and date comes up automatically. You can create a user identity at any time. Like now. However, like Dougweller, I'm afraid I have to say that I do not find your assertions that you are not the same editor who contributed to Dextroamphetamine credible. The language and the preoccupations are identical. Paul B (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's the same person, no doubt. BMK (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the edit history of the IP, it doesn't really matter whether the same person is responsible for the 'pedophilia' edits - the fact is that the edits coming from the IP now are entirely incompatible with Wikipedia policy regarding original research. And of course incompatible with any encyclopaedia which had any wish to be comprehensible... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

In any case, the Geolocate report says that the IP is static. BMK (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. NE Ent 22:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

(1) This is not an article. (2) The behavioral and inguistic evidence is unambiguous. BMK (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, "counselors", I munificently offer myself up as your scapegoat: ban this I.P. address in utter lunacy animated by nothing but unreasonable personal emotionalism. I can toggle things, learn things, and return in better form one day. Your action will have accomplished nothing. Are any of you even "officers of rank" here? I hardly can imagine the possibility. Your procedural irregularities and lack of professionalism, you have shown the world to your own dishonor. No good-willed person would seek to ban me, perhaps explain the formatting precisions and tiny bits of stylistic regularity to be conformed to, but banning a person out of nowhere?

I have no more words. I am interested if any of you fellows are actual "jurisprudence" figures or "justices", however...

Mock the caged beast - who is the real troll? Yuck it up, real impressive. Karma exists, the world sees your pettiness of spirit and lack of equity.

Oh no, I am not American English by birth, curse my inferior blood! Thus my diction and lexicon and verbose meandering can be dense and difficult and almost unintelligible at times - yet, it is still better to be a good-willed person who lacks rhetorical sophistic skill than a mere amoral rhetorician of a dessicated scholarship. Ban me for a day, a week, over ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, good God what an achievement of heroes you men-folk erected to the God of Victory this day!

And I thought Abd had some massive posts ... Ravensfire (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I've read a lot on AN/I, angry posts, apologetic posts, accusatory posts but nothing so over-the-top ("the God of Victory"?!). If you are not a troll, well, you have an inflated sense of importance. I think people would be less harsh to you if you accepted some responsibility that what you wrote wasn't appropriate for a public, online encyclopedia along with a knowledge of the Manual of Style and WP guidelines and policies. We're all just editors here, even admins, and a little humility can lead to good-will.

P.S. I think your densely worded, opinionated prose is more appropriate for a book you might write one day, not WP which is for a general reader with a basic knowledge of English. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A self-published book, perhaps. BMK (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, nice Sanhedrin eye-poke, I needed that, appreciate it, fair assessor. {{xsign}20:02, 21 February 2014‎ 75.52.186.148}}

I endorse an indefinite block (or the static-IP equivalent thereof). The contributions are gibberish and many of them, to the extent understandable, are alarming. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the above. The individual seems to view reality outside American materialist sensate culture, and thus should be forthwith liquidated. I am contacting the FBI riot squad paramilitaries right now as I type this to make sure this high-risk individual is suitably watched by the governmental sentries and hopefully permanently chained for such irresponsible individuality. In fact, indefinite banning is too weak: sempiternal shall be the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Block per WP:NOTHERE, please. BMK (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Diannaa and I blocked for 1 year at the same time; Diannaa won. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• Special thanks go out to Beyond My Ken and AndyTheGrump for assisting with the clean-up. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Some communication issue?

I know this is known as a dramaboard and I really don't want to cause any. However, I'm not in the habit of asking for admin assistance offline.
Request: Could a genuinely conciliatory admin kindly take a look at the communication issues in my most recent interactions? I'm afraid I've got a bit hot under the collar: this interaction (thoroughly gf no doubt on both sides) to me feels subjectively unfortunate and objectively wrong. Thank you, 86.173.146.3 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You'll get a better response if you provide "diffs" (examples) of what you are concerned about and why so they don't have to guess. Are you reporting yourself? It's not clear what the problem is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's a little unfortunate that the IP has felt the need to come here; the interactions have been with me, as far as I'm aware (I haven't looked into any of the IP's history, because there's been no need to, so I'm not aware of any other issues). I think it's more a case of a simple misunderstanding, rather than anything else. The relevant discussion is at User talk:XLinkBot#Massive reversion at Savart wheel, where the bot reverted an addition of a YouTube link as part of an otherwise constructive list of edits by the IP. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that thread and the related reversions etc. While recognizing that Luke94 intends no harm (gf), for me this has been something of a put down, apparently based on a personal interpretation of a guideline/practice, which seems to me authoritarian and unjustified. Although not key to the page, the implicated link [68] was most certainly a constructive edit for reasons I have explained [69] 86.173.146.3 (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm an admin and I'd like to think that I'm generally conciliatory (I try to be at least). I understand that the intent was to improve the Savart wheel article by linking to a video hosted by YouTube that showed such a wheel in action. I understand the motivation behind the action. I believe that the both of you were correct in your arguments, in that our current external links guideline allows for such links under particular circumstances, yet Lukeno94 pointed out that in practice the community has come to dislike links to YouTube from articles. In my experience that is true, and I actually expected the guideline to have been updated but it hasn't

I think that there are two problems here; one is the discrepancy between common practice and our guideline, which should be addressed at WT:EL and possibly may only be resolved with a full request for comments for the community to decide definitively whether or not to outright ban YouTube video links from articles. Until and unless that occurs, the short term solution is to decide whether or not the video is proper to include for that article, which should be decided at the article talk page.

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a bot that is removing links that are allowed to exist on Wikipedia in a guideline. That must be frustrating to editors. -- Atama頭 23:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehension of the situation and the informative analysis. Yes, in this case I've it really frustrating. I had no idea that carefully chosen YouTube links were now discouraged. (Fwiw, I really hate conflict with gf editors.) 86.173.146.3 (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding: Running an "anti-vandal" bot can place an editor in a position of real power with respect to other gf editors, including ips. I feel that such power needs to be exercised with special care. Making gf editors feel they're being treated on a par with unconstructive ips can be a real put down (especially when, as in the present case, it's the only feedback you've received for your work). I think anyone running such a bot needs to be aware of such communication issues. In the present case, for example, I was told that the guideline effectively didn't count ("full stop"). Such an argument leaves one wondering how the heck one's supposed to seek guidance for one's editorial decisions. I also found the tone of the comments quite condescending, and the double use of reversions -- one (i.e. just 1RR) by the bot, followed by one (1RR) by the user -- somewhat inappropriate. All told, for this editor at least, not a good experience. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding: I'm also curious to know whether the massive reversion of all my edits (not just the implicated EL) [70] is part of the bot's regular behaviour (perhaps with ips?), or whetrher there is some other technical glitch. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• It is indeed the bot's standard method to "rollback" all edits by the same user in this cycle, as I explained earlier. This is to stop any intermediate edits by the same user from deliberately blocking the reversion. In your case, it unfortunately leads to the removal of a lot of improvements for one bad EL. 1RR is not relevant here (it isn't in force in this article, and reverting once does not an edit war make, despite what your revert's edit summary stated), and I'm not seeing how my edit summaries were condescending; they were short and to the point. What I said about the guideline is also accurate, as Atama confirmed; Wikipedia is a constantly-evolving organism, and this creates some gaps where policies and guidelines do not have the wording to match current practice. I suggest you read User:XLinkBot/FAQ, 86, to see exactly why the bot acts the way it does. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I think the mass reversion was, as I think you recognise, unfortunate here (though of course in practice no more than a minor shock) and I think it called for some apology, however brief. My point about 1RR is that by reverting twice, once with your bot and once as a human user, you were effectively able to put me under 3RR. I cannot accept the argument about the primacy of "standard practice", as that is blatantly unfair to gf users who follow guidelines, while prefering for the most part to stay out of internal Wikipedia discussions. As regards what I perceived as a "condescension", I understand that you do not perceive it in the same way (online communication between people who don't know each other is almost invariably tricky). Fwiw, I'm referring to statements such as I'm not going to click on a YouTube link in an article. Or a Tumblr link in an article. Neither should be there, full stop. This was a carefully selected EL and you weren't prepared to take a moment to look at it, justifying your bot's automated actions on a highly personal interpretation of guidelines/practice for which there is no general consensus. And then you expect me to read the technical blurb for your bot...? Well, actually I'd prefer to try to get some sleep and get my blood pressure back down... 86.173.146.3 (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, now I see exactly where most of this confusion has come from. The bot is not mine; I just happen to have its talk page on my watchlist, for reasons that I cannot remember, and I was the first to spot it and respond to the case (I've seen similar issues to this happen before). As I've said several times, I do very much appreciate the work you put into that article, which is why I was equally careful not to hit the revert button when you reverted the bot, but simply removed the offending links, which I removed based on my experience of consensus here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words Luke. I feel I'm beginning to understand the dynamics of this. Involved individuals apart, I think this discussion has thrown up some general questions:

• Is it right for a bot to remove, by default, a series of obviously constructive contributions?
• Is it acceptable for a bot and its operator/s user/s to enforce an unofficial interpretation of policy which is not present in the guidelines?
• Is it reasonable to expect operators users of bots such as this one (aimed at preventing unconstructive editing) to take the time examine, at least to some extent, the editorial implications of the issues the bot has detected -- especially after they have been challenged by the contributor -- before insisting on enforcement by repeatedly removing the implicated content?

Finally, I specifically wish to communicate to Wikipedia/Wikimedia that if this sort of unpleasant situation is an editor's reward for developing a page in this way, then I'm damn glad I've chosen to edit as an ip (thereby making me largely immune to malicious profiling by third parties). 86.173.146.3 (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• A bot cannot distinguish between "good" and "bad" beyond what it is programmed for. In this case, XLinkBot is programmed to deal with links, and nothing else; ClueBot deals with the "regular" vandalism. The reason the anti-vandalism bots work in this way is that it stops any vandalism being missed, or made unrevertable due to deliberate manipulation of edits that prevents the removal. Whilst it might be better for XLinkBot to simply remove the bad links, this is not what it was approved to do. The FAQ that I linked to makes a good and understandable case for why things are done in this way. It is acceptable for a bot to enforce "grey areas", because 99% of the time, an IP or new user linking in a YouTube video is doing so for nefarious reasons (self-promotion, general promotion, general spam, flat-out vandalism, etc). It is not reasonable to expect bot operators to examine everything their bot does; at that point, the bot becomes redundant anyway, and many bot runners are semi-active or focus on keeping their bots going (which, given the mess of code that makes up the backbone of Wikimedia-related sites, is no mean feat). If you were an autoconfirmed user, then the bot would probably not interfere with you, unless your link was totally inappropriate. You can, however, request on the bot's talkpage for your IP address to be whitelisted, in order to stop further issues with this bot - if the bot owner agrees to this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• It shoudl also be noted that the vast majority of Youtube links that get put into Wikipedia are copyright violations. This is why they're considered a no-no: they make Wikipedia a party to contributory copyright infringement. Some are good - ones that are, say, uploaded to an "official" channel - but the majority are not, and sometimes it's hard to tell even what really is official or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The operator user of the bot twice insisted on reremoving the link in person [71][72] even after I had entered into discussion on the bot's talk page, a) explaining why this is, imo, one of those "good" links that you rightly mention [73] and b) requesting clarification regarding the WP:YOUTUBE guideline which I believe I have followed correctly [74][75]. For the record, I have now also discussed my rationale on the article talk page, explaining why I believe it is a particularly valuable EL [76].

Imposing personal interpretations of Wikipedia best practice on the basis of personal interpretations such as You tube links should not be included in articles, full stop [77] is I believe "authoritarian" and unhelpful. Refusing to take a moment consider the editorial context [78] (as if the sites linked were somehow beneath the editor's dignity) is I think ungrateful and perhaps (indirectly) insulting to a contributor who has clearly put considerable work into building a small stub based on a single dated source [79] into a rather carefully sourced page [80] regarding a genuinely encyclopedic topic. Is this the sort of feedback one likes to expect when just rounding off two days of work on a serious Wikipedia page? Having had little sleep last night following the displeasure, I am now continuing to insist on these points as I think there are broader implications here for Wikipedia. Is it really such a good idea to discourage and perhaps, ultimately, drive away constructive content contributors by imposing personalized/social interpretations of Wikipedia policy? 86.173.146.3 (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Are you simply not reading what I'm writing? I am not the owner of the bot. I have never claimed to be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

(no need to shout) I thought that by using the bot you were "operating" it, but I apparently should have used the term "user". Apologies - the terminology here bot teminology is unfamiliar to me. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

A review of the edits indicate that 86 is a new editor who is attempting to improve Wikipedia (it happens). Adding references. Changing wording. Improving it even. Probably makes more useful mainspace edits than this worthless Ent does in a month. Finds a cool (but probably 30 seconds too long) video online that demonstrates to the Wikipedia reader what a Savart wheel looks and sounds like -- and they get this? The instructions atop User talk:XLinkBot clearly say "If you feel your addition was within those policies and guidelines and are Reliable and Verifiable, and do not violate Copyright, you may undo the changes made by XLinkBot." That's the current policy, no matter how many times editors who should know better say "full stop." NE Ent 14:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Do you have anything constructive to add, other than making very sly attacks against me with no basis whatsoever? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yea, probably didn't really need to say the last part. Stricken. NE Ent 15:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity I should perhaps clarify that I'm not actually a new editor (and I'm not competition here with Ent or anyone else). 86.173.146.3 (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Please review this block

I blocked 174.118.124.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for chopping content repeatedly from Cost of electricity by source; it looked like vandalism and I blocked on that basis. I now see though that they made some kind of garbled reason for removal in the edit summary of their fourth revert, so perhaps this shouldn't be treated as vandalism? On the other hand, they made some rather odd claims at their talk page. I am going to bed and if anyone feels that my block was harsh or that semi-protection would be a better way forward and that the IP user understands how we work, they can unblock without further input from me. Any feedback gratefully received. --John (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the block was appropriate. Although there may be competence issues involved, the IP's edit history is puzzling—a few edits last year, and now edit-warring and section-blanking. Could be a dynamic IP, a sock or undisclosed COI editing. In any case, 3RR was breached and a one-day block is the standard breather. All the best, Miniapolis 00:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not vandalism, because they believe there is misinformation in the article, but definitely edit warring. A little more non-templated engagement by established editors prior to escalation would have been nice, but the post-block dialog by John is reasonable... editor indicates they discussed the edit(s) on the "talk back" page but history doesn't indicate any postings to a talk page. I'm off wiki soon myself but if a kind soul wanted to attempt engagement on ip talk page... NE Ent 03:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. --John (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Andrew Wakefield

User:Zackiegirl, see Zackiegirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems to be an SPA account engaged in a combination of edit warring and fringe POV and WP:OR pushing at Andrew Wakefield; may in fact already be in violation of WP:3RR. I believe that a block of some sort is in order. Nsk92 (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

See edit summary: "Corrections to reflect the truth." NE Ent 03:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Clear case of someone who's here only to promote a truth of some sort. I was hesitant to push the button, but earlier activism was reverted here. Block per WP:NOTHERE, which in this case also includes edit warring, and since they're essentially an SPA on the vaccine-autism tip I see no reason to give them even more leeway. If Zackiegirl ever wishes to explain and perhaps receive a few pointers, they can place an unblock request since indefinite is not infinite. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice work Drmies. I have edited that article so I was reluctant to get involved. This account has campaigner written all over it. Not here to improve the encyclopedia. --John (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Would there be any point in blacklisting http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com ? It can serve no useful purpose here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I would support this. --John (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing my talk page comments

User:Lightbreather (LB) edited an article talk page comment of mine without permission.[81] Her edit summary was: “Anythingyouwant, I hope you won't mind my anonymizing this for (currently) uninvolved editors' sakes. If so, please revert.” I did mind, and reverted.

A little while later, this editor did it again, but on a much bigger scale.[82] I have not reverted this time, and ask an uninvolved admin to please stop this cycle.

Okay, that's the short version. Now for the longer version, regarding the second (huge) editing of my comments....This kerfuffle involves the article Gun politics in the United States (the "US article") which is a subject of a current ArbCom case (the main subject of the case is the international article Gun control). The US article has a section about people wanting guns to prevent tyranny. LB wanted to prevent that section from including anything about people wanting guns to prevent Nazi-style oppression. So, on January 29, I said that I assumed everyone agreed that the Nazis were tyrannous; to my surprise, LB disagreed.[83] I subsequently mentioned this amazing thing to ArbCom on February 4.[84] Fast forward to today, LB decided over my objections to re-hash the issues that are now before ArbCom (with a decision imminent), and so I obliged.[85] I mentioned the same thing today that I previously mentioned to ArbCom, and LB asked me to delete it from the talk page, and I declined. The discussion is in the link I just gave. So then LB made two successive edits deleting many of my comments. The first edit had this edit summary: "Removing per WP:RPA after other editor refused three requests to remove WP:WIAPA Nazi comparisons." The second edit had this summary: "Restored beginning of sentence lost in removing (three) Nazi comparisons; removed requests (three) to remove Nazi comparisons". I didn't attack LB, and instead invited her to retract her weird previous statement that the Nazis were not tyrannous. Anyway, there you have it. Since my talk page comment got hacked up, I figured it's something that should be mentioned here, even though it's part of an inflamed controversy that is currently before ArbCom.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the discussion and my objection speak for themselves. This [86] is what it looked like before I removed, per RPA, Anythingyouwant's remarks, which I first asked him three times to remove. The last part of the discussion is most pertinent (scroll down to the out-dent). There was no reason to bring up my remark - taken out of context - from over three weeks ago, let alone to misrepresent it. I told Anything that, and asked him - three times - to remove those parts of his comments.

Were the Nazis tyrants? They were sick, twisted mass-murderers, and to lump what they did in with the "general tyranny" (his words, not mine) of King George's taxation without representation or current attempts to pass stronger gun regulations is beyond inappropriate.

I think it's more than a "kerfuffle" to have someone implying you're a Nazi sympathizer because you don't agree with their ideas of who are tyrants. Lightbreather (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of being a Nazi sympathizer, or anything of the sort. What I said is that you denied the Nazis were tyrannous, which is exactly what you did. Perhaps you did that to gain advantage in a content dispute; that seems much more likely than that you have the least sympathy for Nazis.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where Lightbreather denied that the Nazis were "tyrannous" which is a very obscure word alternative to "tyrannical" in any case. I think instead that the editor objected to lumping 21st century U.S. gun control advocates in with the Nazis as "tyrannous", which I believe is a reasonable invocation of Godwin's law. Hammering on about "Nazi this, and Nazi that" in such a discussion seems profoundly unhelpful to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, I don't like bringing this here, and I don't even like editing an article that has a Nazi angle, legitimate or not. No one (certainly not me) advocated lumping 21st century U.S. gun control advocates in with the Nazis as "tyrannous". What I object to is having my comments edited.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Anything: That makes THREE times you've linked to my remark in thhis discussion alone. Why? Also, I explained then and earlier today why I did not agree with your oversimplified I'm-assuming-everyone-here-agrees-the-Nazis-were-tyrannous argument. And I explained further in my last reply. The Polish doctor who delivered me was a concentration camp survivor, and this conversation is causing me distress. Stop trying to make something distasteful out of what I said to refute your bogus remark of three weeks ago. Lightbreather (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well many of my relatives died in concentration camps. This is a delicate subject. I'm more than happy for you to clarify what you meant, but I did not attack you, and there was no valid reason for you to delete my talk page comments.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

They were personal attacks because there was no valid reason for you to add those comments. Lightbreather (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No, LB, you started a talk page section today with "Nazi" in your title. And then you edited my talk page comments in that section you started, and falsely accused me of implying that you are a Nazi sympathizer. What I did was comment about the fact that you denied Nazis were "tyrannous". And you then deleted that comment of mine, along with my explanation: "it goes to the relevance of including Nazi material in the tyranny section." We should be able to agree about the simplest and most obvious fact in human history: that the Nazis were tyrants. You could say they were tyrants, but claim that they were completely different from any other tyrants alluded to in that section of the article, and then we could discuss that claim, but instead you still refuse to acknowledge that the Nazis were tyrants. It amazes me. In any event, I want my comments restored to that talk page, please.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

LB There was no need to 'anonymize' those user names, because the user was discussing their on-wiki !votes. LB, will you agree not to edit other people's comments on Any's talk page in future? Any, if they agree, would that solve this specific ANI request? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did I edit comments on his talk page? I thought this was about an article talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, forget that, I misread things. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How about agreeing not to edit comments he makes on talk pages in future? If there's something you think is wrong (per policy/guideline), you can always request that someone else deals with them. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:RPA only is a valid action where there are violations that actually meet WP:NPA. I see no such personal attacks (see WP:WIAPA). Once your removal was undone, it fell into WP:BRD mode, and if you honestly felt it was indeed a personal attack, then your correct place for discussion was here to request consensus on whether or not it was a personal attack. DP 09:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I only reverted LB's small removal, not the big one. I brought the matter here instead. I definitely would like to revert, but would like a green light to do so. Before LB deleted my comments, she asked me to do so three times, and I refused all three times, and she went ahead and did it; I don't expect that she'd accept a revert if she wouldn't let me leave the comments in.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO I think you would be more than justified in restoring your comments. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have just now done so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The "small removal" Anything refers to: I replaced two editors' names with four asterisks each. Since our discussion wasn't about those editors, and since one of those editors is currently before ArbCom and the other one I don't wish to hassle, I put the asterisks in MY (original) comment first... and then, yes, in A's reply - which was a COPY/quote of MY comment, pre-asterisk. And my edit summary explained my action. And when he restored their names I did not complain, even though it looks funny now. My comment with two names asterisked out, followed by his copy of my comment with the names included. Lightbreather (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As for the insulting Lightbreather-denies-that-the-Nazis-were-tyrants comment, which I asked A. to remove three times. I read WP:WIAPA and WP:RPA three times, and I feel they do apply. 1. WIAPA says, "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion." It goes on to list some things that are never allowed, and ends by saying: "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Guys, A. didn't say Neener-neener at me. He's formed an opinion about me based on a Nazi comment taken out of context - and he's attacking me with it. Lightbreather (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not attacking you. I have said repeatedly that I do not think you have any sympathy with Nazis, you are not a tyrant, et cetera. What more can I possibly say? Now, perhaps it would be convenient if I were attacking you, because then it would be an easier matter to get me kicked out of Wikipedia, but, as Al Gore says, sometimes the truth is not convenient. Anyway, you have many reasons to be optimistic about the ArbCom case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Simply refactoring other people's comments are indeed grounds for a good block and its been done before. Why the hypocrisy? Considering she did it AGAIN and heasnt learn.Lihaas (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it too late to point out that contributors' personal opinions as to whether the Nazi's were 'tyrants' is of no relevance to article content, and accordingly doesn't belong on the article talk page in the first place? This whole kerfuffle seems to have been started when Anythingyouwant wrote "P.S. I'm assuming everyone here agrees that the Nazis were tyrannous" [87], and Lightbreather responded "I think that statement oversimplifies "tyrannous" for this argument, so for this argument I do not agree". [88] At that point, neither Anythingyouwant nor anyone else asked Lightbreather to expand on her statement, and accordingly, for Anythingyouwant to raise it again almost a month later, as a blanket statement that "You may not think the Nazis were tyrants" looks to me like a petty attempt at point-scoring, if not a personal attack. I note that Anythingyouwant has also chosen to raise this (long after the appropriate period for the submission of evidence) at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop, under the heading of 'Vandalism at article talk page' - which looks to me to be (a) forum shopping, (b) an entirely out-of-process attempt to introduce new evidence (the decision is late as it is), and (c) in direct contradiction to WP:VANDAL. I suggest that this thread be closed with an admonishment to Anythingyouwant for misrepresenting Lightbreather's original comment, and an admonishment to Lightbreather for removing the personal attack, rather than reporting the matter for others to deal with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And I request that AndyTheGrump be admonished for willfully misrepresenting the facts. His omissions could not be more glaring. For one thing, he is an opposing involved party in the ArbCom case. For another, he knows that ArbCom has instructed: "If something new came up that supports a workshop proposal since the evidence phase closed, we don't need to legalistically bar editors from bringing attention to it, since it would have been rather impossible to bring up there." Additionally, Grump knows that I have been continually objecting to LB's refusal to acknowledge that the Nazis were tyrants, including evidence I presented to ArbCom (which Andy also omits). Grump also knows that I have already acknowledged that LB's actions might not rise to the level of vandalism, but that I also contend that inserting "obvious nonsense" is indeed vandalism, which (as Grump knows) is what I have said happened here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, please close this thread. I got what I came for, namely support for restoring my deleted talk page comments. The rest seems to be just an attempt to divert, distract, and discombobulate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Which facts have I misrepresented? Diffs please. And the ArbCom workshop phase has been closed for some time. And why the fuck do you think that Lightbreather should be obliged to "acknowledge that the Nazis were tyrants"? Since when has participation in Wikipedia been contingent on 'acknowledging' facile oversimplifications of history clearly raised as polemical points by partisan contributors? And no, I see no reason to close this thread until you have provided the evidence to back up your claim that I have been 'misrepresenting facts'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I already specified the many items that you omitted, causing misrepresentation by omission. Moreover, per Arbitrator instruction on 13 February: "I'm expecting to have the draft proposed decision posted for Workshop comments within a week." That has not happened yet, and workshop comments are perfectly appropriate right now, as you yourself have been demonstrating. Lightbreather is not obliged to "acknowledge that the Nazis were tyrants", but I would urge have urged that she do that, since she has denied it, and since the disputed material does not belong in a section about "tyrants" if the disputed material is not about "tyrants".

I urged LB not to reopen this mess at the article talk page yesterday, and I have urged you to not perpetuate it here. But if you insist, then we can certainly go on and on.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you think a contributor's personal opinion of whether Nazis were tyrants is of any relevance to article content? Not that we actually know what Lightbreather's opinion on the matter actually is, since her only comment on the matter seems to be to the effect that she disagreed with the use of the word in one particular context - an entirely reasonable position to take when faced with facile polemics. Evidently you aren't actually interested in her opinion though, since rather than ask for an explanation of why she disagreed - in that context - you chose to misrepresent it at ArbCom as some sort of blanket statement. Which it clearly never was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not care about any editor's personal opinions, except about article content. The disputed material does not belong in a section about "tyrants" if the disputed material is not about "tyrants".

First, Andy, you say that I think LightBreather is "obliged" to answer me, and then you say that I'm "not actually interested" in any answer. Please get your story straight, or better yet let this matter drop so ArbCom can finish its business. I will say to you what I already said to LB: you have an excellent chance of prevailing at ArbCom, given that LB is not an involved party (and given my own cynicism about that committee).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How exactly is a statement that "I do not care about any editor's personal opinions" compatible with your earlier assertion that "I have been continually objecting to LB's refusal to acknowledge that the Nazis were tyrants"? You seem to be insisting on some sort of blanket yes or no answer, rather than actually allowing LightBreather to explain her position. And no, LightBreather's opinion on whether the Nazis were tyrants should be of no relevance to article content - that should be left to the appropriate sources, qualified historians of Nazism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already answered. Obviously, if LB does not agree that the Nazis were tyrants for purposes of this Wikipedia article, then that is extremely relevant to whether the disputed material belongs in a section about "tyrants". I have already offered to provide LB with reliable sources proving that they were tyrants (see article talk page).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What is most 'obvious' here is that you took a qualified statement from LightBreather ('I think that statement oversimplifies "tyrannous" for this argument, so for this argument I do not agree') as some sort of generalised statement you could raise later as and when you felt like it, just to make her look bad. Hence her objections. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I overlooked her statement until I was putting together my evidence for ArbCom. But it speaks for itself, I didn't mischaracterize it, it explains her position, it's a very flawed statement, I have invited her to change it, I have offered to present evidence that the Nazis were tyrants, and it's manifestly absurd to suggest that the Nazis were tyrants except for purposes of this Wikipedia article. Anyway, Andy, I'm not going to clutter up ANI by further responses to you about this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The FIST TIME Lightbreather went to ANI for doing this, she escaped being blocked due to non-consensus. She appears not to have learned. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly relevant ANI thread: [89] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: that ANI, we worked out an agreement on Sue's talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Andy, but LB and I have that worked out. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The first time I went for RPA was the last time I went, and the admin on that case said I had good reason to remove the comments - accusing me of vandalism - and he said the editor who brought it up had a boomerang coming, which I considered, but declined to do. Lightbreather (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As to the relevance of comparisons between 20th or 21st century gun control and Nazi tyranny, Anythingyouwant said above: "No one (certainly not me) advocated lumping 21st century U.S. gun control advocates in with the Nazis as "tyrannous"." While I would not conflate the two or indeed see them as at all similar, there is a minority but significant faction in US politics that does see gun control as quite similar to the actions of the Nazi regime, and uses that comparison freely, a fact which may be of relevance to the article. DES ^(talk) 21:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Replied at user talk.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

AccuracyObsessed

AccuracyObsessed continues to vandalize two pages by removing documented and cited information. AccuracyObsessed has been warned and will not discuss anything on the talk pages. Schwartzenberg (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Schwartzenberg has made inaccurate, poorly sourced postings on two articles that appear to be personal attacks and may be libelous. Please view the pages and stop this user from changing well-documented history.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The information was not poorly sourced. It is in a court record. Furthermore, this subject must be covered accurately.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwartzenberg (talk • contribs) 04:37, 22 February 2014

One of the articles in question is Sheri Fink who won the Pulitzer Prize for her reporting about the medical aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, inherently a controversial story. It seems that there is an active campaign to make Fink look bad, for example, by placing undue weight on her decision to pursue a career in journalism instead of medicine, and accusing her of a lack of journalistic integrity. There are serious WP:BLP concerns, and an active edit war is going on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested prot [90] 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There's some major WP:NPOV violations in there. I've taken a stab at removing them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Schwartzenberg, we're not using an advocacy site specifically created to attack the subject as the major source of a "Criticism" section. Find neutral third party sources like newspapers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As for being "in a court record", remember WP:BLPPRIMARY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion page, Talk:Sheri_Fink, seems awfully quiet. I suggest y'all use it before making further changes - discuss things and get consensus. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Poorly sourced contentious material in a BLP needs to be dealt with right way. None of the editors who were not previously in the dispute have reverted or disagreed with each other. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, 88.104.19.233... so nice to see you back in the game with your calm, wise advice! Don't ever think you're not missed around here...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This conflict also involves Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina‎‎. I made some comments at the talk page (Talk:Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina‎‎) after Schwartzenberg posted about it (under its former name) at the help desk. Additional eyes would be welcome there, i think. DES ^(talk) 21:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by William M. Connolley

Note: I'm trying to follow instructions on how to file this complaint; I have never done this before.

User:William M. Connolley has engaged in tendentious editing at Charles R. Burton.
When the article was created in 2008, Burton was described as an "explorer," which was duly cited to an obituary in the NYT that called him an explorer. Diff. The word stood until WMC removed it on 8 Feb with the edit summary, "rephrase a bit, make his role clear, and not-call him an explorer: it was only 4 years of his life, after all." Diff.

I reverted it about a week later with the summary, "Unquestionably an explorer." Four hours later he reverted my revert (removed the word "explorer" again) with the summary, "no, its *definteily* questionable, cos I questioned it." Diff. The next day I reverted it, adding more RSs that call Burton an explorer and summarizing, "We'll stick with the RSs." Diff.

On 17 Feb., I fixed a few little things in the article and opened a section on the article talk page asking, "Dr. Connolley, please revert your removal of reliably sourced info. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)" Diff. I also posted on his own talk page, "Hello. Please revert yourself at Charles R. Burton. The sources are clear that he was an explorer and they should not be removed. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)". Diff.To this he responded, "Stop stalking and get a life William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)" Diff.

Then User:Viriditas and User:Jonathan A Jones joined the discussion and in turn restored the word "explorer." You can see the history here.

The crux of my argument is what I posted on WMC's talk page: The article called Burton an explorer since it was created in 2008; the burden of proof to show from RSs that he was not falls on you. We have four reliable sources--including the one you let stand--that call him an explorer. Can you please explain on what basis you assert, "he's still not an explorer, sorry"? Can you please provide a rationale for deleting reliable sources? Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Diff. I follow the logic of his reply, but believe it is a personal interpretation and opinion not allowed at WP, a tertiary encyclopedia. If the sources call Burton an explorer, we have to, too. Diff.

Next, WMC very appropriately moved our discussion to the article talk page. You can follow the short history of the discussion here.

My bottom line is that I feel WMC should restore the word "explorer" as the prime identifier of Burton in the first sentence. I do not wish to engage in an edit war with him so have not restored it myself. Yopienso (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to say that I warned WMC at the article page, which he did not respond to, and on his talk page, which he blanked. Diff. Diff. Yopienso (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

My involvement here was fleeting. I saw the debate, and I thought that the arguments on both sides had some merit, but the strength of the argument probably lay with Yopienso. The discussion on the talk page was largely users talking past each other rather than to each other, though once again Yopienso seemed to be making more of an effort than WMC. I suggested a compromise which I implemented, but it didn't find favour with either side of the debate, and the page returned to an unedifying squabble. As this had exhausted my interest in the subject I left them to it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Um -- what I found amazing was the assertion that a person who was only an explorer for four years is thus ineligible to be called an "explorer" at all, but must remain only "British" in the opening sentence of the lead. Collect (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As the article shows, he was a soldier and security contractor for most of his life. So he could be called something based on that. What I found amazing is that someone is deemed notable based on 5 newspaper articles. These sorts of sources aren't going to carefully deal with the issues of calling someone an explorer when that isn't what they did for most of their life but only for a short period. A large published biography would presumably sort the issues out, but the threshold for notability is so low for biographies that these sorts of issues arise in the first place. Second Quantization (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he did most of his life. What matters is what he's notable for. Wallace Stevens spent most of his life working in insurance, but he's famous for being a poet. Anders Breivik spent one day of his life being a mass murderer, but that's what he's famous for, and the only reason he has an article. Paul B (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And yet the Breivik article doesn't say, "Anders brevik is a mass murder". It says he was the perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks. Just like the Burton article should read: [91]. Second Quantization (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think Burton is properly called an explorer, because that;s where his notability is, and because that's what he as called in the NYT obit.I doubt they would have done an obit on him otherwise, nor we an article. I also think this discussion does not belong here. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a content dispute and should not be posted here. I think the word "explorer" is redundant in the first sentence, because it then says he is best known for his part in a expedition, which is what explorers do. So he is an explorer best known for exploring. The article on Anders Breivik does not btw say in the first paragraph that he was a mass murderer, but that he killed people and was convicted of mass murder. TFD (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your comments. I have been instructed that an RfC was in order, not an AN/I. I have posted an RfC to the article talk page. Yopienso (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Andy Sellers, BLP violating hoax

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 started looking into this article to find sources but was unable to confirm anything. And when clicking on some of the many wikilinks noticed some were created as fakes; see here the links for the alleged co-bandmates. The band never seemed to exist, the shows, some of which list dozens of cast/cameos never list this person. And most troubling besides outing what is likely a fictionalized real person, we are naming a wife, and children, noting his bisexuality, and his "his battles with depression, alcoholism and cocaine addiction". Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Deleted for the time being; I'll have a look now to see if it's complete bollocks or something else. Black Kite (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, that is indeed complete nonsense and will be staying deleted, thanks for reporting it. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Parkfly3 in violation of 3RR

User:Parkfly3 has engaged in an edit war, and has repeatedly deleted flag templates from List of Quebec Nordiques draft picks. Parkfly3 has ignored my warning to not edit war and has violated the three-revert rule.

• Edit #1 - 14:35, 21 February 2014 [92] – Parkfly3 deleted “flags” from table.

- “flags restored to article per WP:BRD at 18:01 [93]].

• Edit #2 - 18:16, 21 February 2014 [94] – Parkfly3 again deleted “flags” from table.

- “flags again restored to article per BRD at 19:13 [95]

- Warning message sent to Parkfly3 at 19:17 (ignored) [96]

• Edit #3 - 19:49, 21 February 2014 [97] - – Parkfly3 again deleted “flags” from table.

User:Parkfly3 is in clear violation of WP:3RR and I request that the account be blocked to prevent further disruptive editing. Dolovis (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR means that you must not make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours and Parkfly3 has only just reached the limit of 3 reverts. So while there is no clear violation there is a tendency to edit warring and any further reverts will be met with a block; but as Parkfly3 has now stopped editing I won't block right now. Dolovis, you might, however, want to take a look at WP:MOSFLAG which says that "flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality" and "where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise." (PS: For future reference, the noticeboard for edit warring is thataway.) De728631 (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of the flag template at this article appears to comply with WP:MOSFLAG , but in any event, per WP:BRD, Parkfly3 should not edit war, but should rather first seek a consensus on the article's talk page before making controversial edits to articles. Thank you for the direction to the edit warring noticeboard and if the problem continues it will be taken there. Dolovis (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

BRD isn't a policy or a guideline. It's just an essay. buffbills7701 18:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's an essay that emphasizes that WP:CONSENSUS is key, and not to break WP:3RR or WP:EW. So, essay or not, it takes policy and makes it easily understandable DP 21:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong in WP:ANEW? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As the panda obseves, it's "only an essay" that reflects how WP:CONSENSUS interprets policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Russell Hantz protection needed from IP hopping disruptor

Resolved

 – An administrator has protected the article until March 8th. Gloss • talk 22:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This article appears to be the latest target for a IP hopping vandal. See the closed AfD history, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813 show some of the background. Can someone quickly protect the article at least for a few days? The history is quickly filling up with vandalism/reverting. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

coretheapple violating edit warring and 3R rule

Coretheapple again vandalized the Santacon page. This has happened at least 6 times in the last three months. I'm reporting him to admins and requesting to delete his account for repeated violations of Wikipedia terms of service and anti community, antisocial activity. coretheapple is engaged in edit warring and violating the 3 revert rule. He has contempt for the terms and conditions of wikipedia culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C07A:25C0:F108:EB21:FE91:28C7 (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No violation evident: Coretheapple made one revert today and it was clearly in good faith. His/her edit summary clearly explained the reason for the revert. No sanctions are necessary against that account. —C.Fred (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

[98],[99],[100] Clueless forumshopper. — Writegeist (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm not seeing anything problematic from Coretheapple. 2602 on the other hand... insistent POV-pushing on Santacon, lack of understanding of the edit warring policy, and a lot of hysterical screaming at Coretheapple in a lot of different places. Reyk _YO! 08:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Well is this a WP:BOOMERANG then? I have always found Core to be a fine and civil editor. Jusdafax 10:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Ajativada

Repeated block evasion by User:Aoclery at Ajativada, using User:174.1.72.182 and newly created account User:Toclery. SPI has been re-opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aoclery, but will probbably take a few weeks. Given the persistence of this user, I'm also posting this notice here in hope of swift action. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

User:‎Gareth Griffith-Jones - strongly unwelcoming and insulting edit summaries

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 had a experience that raises concern with ‎User:Gareth Griffith-Jones, who I do not believe I have encountered on Wikipedia previously. In the course of attempting to fix a paragraph in the plot summary section of No Country For Old Men (film) this editor reverted me quite insultingly: blatantly ordering me to "leave it alone" and questioning if I had seen the movie at all. My attempts to discuss this on the editor's Talk page were deleted with the further insult of "patronising drivel". Perhaps he found it too much to reply to my ironic observation that his User page states he is a member of the Wikipedia group the "Kindness Campaign."

A quick look at Griffith-Jones' recent edits shows that I am not the only editor he has insulted just today. Here calls the edits "nonsense" which is a patent violation of the civility pillar. To an editor new to an article, this type of over-the-top insult discourages participation and leads to ownership and stagnation. I ask for justice in the name of those others abused by Griffith-Jones to stop his potential further abuses in the future. It's my strongly held view that corrective measures are in order for Griffith-Jones. Thanks for any consideration you can give this incident, and I have notified this editor of the report here on his Talk page. (I see the notification has been removed within minutes.) Jusdafax 09:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Only talking of the last incident, per se, "nonsense" is not a personal attack, "idiot" is. See the difference? In this case, you can't eat a meal while you are burying a person, can you? You can enjoy a meal during transport, but during the act of burying? That is rather meaningless to state.Arildnordby (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's turn it around. With respect, if I were to say your post is nonsense, would you feel insulted? Jusdafax 09:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No? Why should I? I say dumb things all the time. Don't you?Arildnordby (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

(Grin) Good thing my girlfriend is asleep already, as her comments would be notable. Seriously, it's new users I am concerned about. The IP in question did not deserve that. It was a good faith edit. Jusdafax 09:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

People who make nonsensical comments deserve to have their comments termed nonsense, whether they are new or not. But, he could have said in edit summary "nonsense, didn't eat while burying"Arildnordby (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking through his edit summaries for the past few weeks, he doesn't strike me as unwelcoming and insulting at all. Looks like more or less the average user to me. Bjelleklang - talk 09:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. Perhaps this is just a blip. I am wondering however if perhaps further back others have observed hostile behavior. I'd like to see an admin issue a warning for the above at the very least. By the way, the editor is not an IP but is an infrequent editor with no user page. Jusdafax 09:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Gareth's one of the good guys. Wikipedia is an extremely frustrating place at times, nobody is immune from being less than courteous at times. There's probably a very good reason for it. I don't see anything worth coming here about, move on.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you think so. However, I find his current disdain and unwillingness to comment with other than insulting edit summaries concerns me, and the oddity of the above juxtaposed with his Talkpage support for the "Kindness Campaign" seems startling. If you don't mind I'd like to see this left up a bit to ascertain if others share my concerns or have had similar experiences. Thanks. Jusdafax 10:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should think a bit about good faith here? You say he "blatantly ordered" you. Did he? All I can see is that he wrote "Leave it alone". That would, in a good faith interpretation be a suggestion and an advice, rather than a "blatant order".Arildnordby (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no way to define the three words as other than an order, in my view. It has the intention of a chilling effect. And you leave out the rest of the edit summary, which can only be taken in combination with the order as insulting. I think most editors here will agree that the summary is out of line by a good measure. But perhaps I'm wrong. Let's hear from a few others. Jusdafax 10:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've taken a look a further back in his history (covering approx the past 2k edits), and I see absolutely _no_ indication that he is rude or hostile in any way to editors. As there has been several other editors here who seem to disagree with your impression, why not let it rest? Perhaps you _may_ just be wrong here as you wrote above, and interpreted him the wrong way. Bjelleklang - talk 11:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. If nothing else,my posting here is in the record in case Griffith_Jones continues with this style of editing. Jusdafax 11:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've bumped into Gareth a few times while editing. He's an enthusiastic chap, particular about Welsh Rugby Union, and I think he was just trying to ignore the drama, though in his case I would just leave a talk page thread to rot rather than explicitly revert it. If the two of you have a content dispute over No Country for Old Men, then follow the usual steps to resolve it. If you put a suggestion on talk that is ignored, you've then got a stronger right to revert. In any case, this doesn't need administrator action. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This was no talk page dispute: I would not have brought that here. This is a revert and the comment is in the edit summary, as the link shows. I had worked out a second version of the paragraph after a previous editor had reverted me and we had worked matters out on his talk page. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. Griffith-Jones reverts insultingly, does not discuss, and removes queries on his talk page. And when I see him using what I'd call insulting edit summaries to others right after my experience, I think at the very least a warning is called for. If there is anyone who has seen similar behavior from Griffith-Jones, it becomes a bigger problem. Jusdafax 10:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

If you make an edit, and another editor reverts it, then simply be the better man and take discussion to the talk page. Simples. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

And when you see others getting uncivil treatment in Griffith-Jones' edit summaries, you ask for other eyes at ANI. For the record I believe this is my second filing here in the past five years. Jusdafax 11:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally ignore them, remind myself of all the family and real world friends I have, then edit somewhere else. Happy editing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

His reverts were not insulting. For example, your own edits reduced the quality of the article, on a) Two rooms are connected by an air vent, you do not rent a room connected to an air vent. b) Neither do you un-screw an air vent cover with a dime, you remove the air vent cover. Basically, your edits was not good English (but obviously good faith).Arildnordby (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not here to debate the content of my edits, but the manner in which they were reverted and the absolute refusal to discuss them. I think your opinions are now clear, and again, I am asking for a spectrum of views, not a continuing discussion with one or two editors. Thanks. Jusdafax 11:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you do not discuss. You SCREAM, refusing to even consider that "Leave it alone" means other than "blatant order", you DECLARE that this user is "insulting" for saying posts are "nonsense". Basically, you demand that your emotional state should be the highest law on Wikipedia. Discussion is not something you show any interest in.Arildnordby (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I thought I'd made it clear my concern is for new editors and those new to an article. Cheers! Jusdafax 11:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever seen Gareth be anything other than amiable in his dealings with other editors. The edit summaries strike me as being concise rather than anything malicious; I don't feel there's a case to answer here. Fraggle81 (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider myself particularly thin-skinned and as I note above, I believe this to be only my second filing here in five years. This treatment from Griffith-Jones seemed unusually harsh to me, as I close in on 60k edits. Perhaps I've just been in a anomalously kindly corner of the pedia. Jusdafax 12:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the summaries. But then I say worse myself, quite frequently ;) - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears the thing to do is agree to close for now. I've done what I deemed needful by establishing a record, and if it never needs to be referred back to, that will be great. Again, as filer I am open to closure. Jusdafax 12:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Popular pages tool update fail?

From my watchlist:

(Mass message log); 21:35 . . Delivery of "Popular pages tool update" to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera was skipped because target was in a namespace that cannot be posted in ‎

(Mass message log); 21:35 . . Delivery of "Popular pages tool update" to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements was skipped because target was in a namespace that cannot be posted in ‎

(Mass message log); 21:35 . . Delivery of "Popular pages tool update" to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam was skipped because target was in a namespace that cannot be posted in ‎

(Mass message log); 21:35 . . Delivery of "Popular pages tool update" to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism was skipped because target was in a namespace that cannot be posted in ‎

(Mass message log); 21:35 . . Delivery of "Popular pages tool update" to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport was skipped because target was in a namespace that cannot be posted in ‎

(Mass message log); 21:35 . . Delivery of "Popular pages tool update" to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora was skipped because target was in a namespace that cannot be posted in ‎

(Mass message log); 21:35 . . Delivery of "Popular pages tool update" to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history was skipped because target was in a namespace that cannot be posted in ‎

Any idea what this might be? I've never seen a message like that before. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The smart Wikipedians hang at WP:VPT, I'd suggest asking there. NE Ent 11:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a failed message delivery attempted using the new mw:Extension:MassMessage delivery system. Of the targets listed at User talk:Mr.Z-man/labsmove, only one message got through. The user has since delivered the messages via another method. I do not know why this delivery failed. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Ah, well, always kinks in this sort of thing. Probably someone forgot that Wikipedia talk: was as viable of a namespace as User talk or Talk. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There is more info at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders#Undelivered messages - Wikipedia talk: namespace --Jnorton7558 (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism by multiple IP's

This user is vandalising Wikipedia using diffrent IP's. It is an open SPI, but since it is not helping at the moment, since the user has been vandalisng for a couple of hours now. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bronx24. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• I see that Edgar181, Acroterion, and my old hero Materialscientist have been handing out blocks left and right. I must be feeling puritanical or, perhaps, I'm compensating for not handing out a civility block, but those edit summaries rubbed me the wrong way and I've revdeleted a whole bunch of them. As Edgar said in protecting one of the targets, "childishness". A range block might be necessary, though I think this is the kind of vandalism that is short-lived. At least, I hope it is. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack

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

---

Orestes1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) states HiLo48 is "nothing more than an incompetent fuckwit"

I've previously pointed out that per Wikipedia guidelines, comments about other editors are not appropriate for article talk pages. [101]

Full disclosure: you'll want a fresh cup of coffee / tea before reading the long, long thread at Talk:Soccer_in_Australia#In_theory, and it ain't like the other guy was perfect, but we gotta draw the line somewhere, right? NE Ent 14:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Editor notified [102] NE Ent 14:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• [ec] I had a half-full cup of rather lukewarm coffee and managed to read most of it. I appreciate your input in the discussion, by the way; it's understandable that few people besides the usual subjects are interested in the matter. I'm a bit loath to block for an insult, though it should be noted that Orestes has a history with HiLo, and that the latter has kept his cool considerably in the recent past. I told Orestes on their talk page that they should either keep their cool or stop editing the page. If any admin things there's enough reason for a block here I won't object, though, again, I don't think one is warranted right now. Any further insults, well, that just wouldn't be good. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Guilty as charged... Nothing more to say... Furthermore... To make this even more simple, I do not care either, so do your worst. When editors abuse the system the way HiLo48 does this is worth every minute of the privilege of being sent on a holiday.

Goodbye --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• You don't need to be sent on a holiday, you can take one yourself. For the record, I see no evidence whatsoever of HiLo abusing anything. (Except that they should really put smaller images on the talk page.) Drmies (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious or just pissing in my pocket about HiLo48s consistently intolerable behaviour? That is actually quite ridiculous when he has spent years abusing people, goading people and where I've been consistently told to "piss off" "fuck off" been called a "moron", incompetent and etc on more than one occasion over an extended period of time... I've simply had enough of this behaviour and his behaviour in general and I will not colour in between the lines with my thoughts anymore. It will be more than pleasurable to take one for the team for his consistent intolerable behaviour and telling the world what everyone actually thinks about his behaviour OVER YEARS. As I said, guilty as charged and what's more, I don't care... And don't humour me with any more time wasting either.

Case closed, throw away the key, send me to the naughty corner, whatever it is, just get it over and done with. I have nothing to say that has not abundantly been said before, I'm tired of this. I will not be participating further in this discussion... I am at your pleasure to serve whatever sentence you feel necessary. I do not want nor need any third party defence of my actions either, so everyone else should stay out of this thanks. I will simply not stand by while this editor does not listen to anything anyone says and simply filibusters any useful discussion.

This is crap and I'm not the problem here beyond my current complete and utter frustration, yep I'll call it for what it is as well crap. I don't need to be told of what I am doing either, don't humour me, don't explain it, I know and what's more I don't care and it's HiLo48s consistent behaviour that his driven me not to care.. with what I do in my life that takes a lot of effort... I know what I've done, I simply DO NOT CARE, don't tell me, Just deal with it... --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks aside, HiLo's behaviour in that thread is just ridiculous. He's taken one stance and fought tooth and nail, consistently using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a fall back position to try to discredit those in favour of the move. If this isn't filibustering I don't know what is. (For the record, I'm Australian myself and I too know the game as soccer, it's what I was raised with. However, given my own bias I don't intend on stepping foot in that minefield.) Blackmane (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, he should have stopped arguing once it was clear his stance had consensus. But given multiple editors vying for the all-important Last Word why single him out as the filibuster? NE Ent 17:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I have been wikihounded by HiLo48 and other editors simply for trying to present NPOV which is where all of this nonsense started do I really need difs to state the obvious?

I can bring a ridiculous amount of good faith edits of mine and others that have been reverted by HiLo48 for what he simply calls "idealogical soccer editors" and "idealogical vandals." It is complete and utter crap that HiLo48 would be defended by any administrator on this page. He has a history over YEARS of filibustering editors on soccer related pages which has led to a point where the article on Soccer in Australia is an absolute joke, and I AM talking about the article AND NOT the talk page... I am just one of a long list of editors he has frustrated to the point where they have either stated things the way they are or given up and left because of the way HiLo48 interacts with other editors where he takes up camp. Lets start here for a revert on an otherwise good faith edit which is just a long list based on a false consensus where the global consensus of Association Football is applicable not to mention HiLo48s ongoing behaviour to insist ALL global articles including articles on international football players of Australian descent be refereed to as soccer players despite the fact that their notability lies almost entirely in nations where the game is called football. This includes players such as Tim Cahill who has played the majority of his football in England and IS more notable as a football players in England and to millions of Europeans than as a soccer player in Australia. HiLo48s attitude towards this IS nothing short of a filibuster to ensure football is only referred to as Australian Rules Football in Australia.

I have attempted to discuss, perhaps at times, in strongly worded civil language why we have the 'association football global compromise and what many of the issues are here and also how HiLo48 could have issues with his cultural and historical understanding of the sport which may be prohibiting his editing but he simply does not listen. He consistently puts up the front that he does not have to justify anything he states under Wikipedia:BLUE and Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE IT rather than entering into any form of discussion. If this is not an obvious filibuster I don't know what is. HiLo48 goes a long way to conceal his limited understanding of soccer with what is nothing more than filibustering to ensure that soccer related articles remain in a state of disrepute

All of this has led to a situation where I simply do not care what happens to me as a user here because I'm that fed up with things I'm just going to say it like it is --Orestes1984 (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• What's funny is, I read the whole damn discussion, including all the IDONTLIKEIT charges (now found here as well), but while it's kind of going around in circles I don't see any evidence of someone "just not liking it". There's argument on both sides, and the circularity is probably due in part because some are not quite clear in what they're arguing, but charges of IDONTLIKEIT are usually a weak cop-out and so they are here. Sorry Blackmane, but you shouldn't confuse obstinacy with fallacy. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• As I have not read any of the Australian sports material Drmies was kind enough to wade through, and I am not likely to, I'll merely point out that after urging sanctions against HiLo48 and seeing him topic banned for a year at our area of mutual interest at WP:ITN, I came to see him as a valuable contributor. Imperfect though he is, I now defend him, sometimes to my own surprise, in large part because he has learned to be a better Wikipedian over the years, and I wish him the best. Though I don't know Orestes1984, his strong personal insult and subsequent defiant print raving here call for corrective measures, in my view. I find that I have to keep lowering the bar on what is tolerated at Wikipedia, however. Why, just recently I... (fade out) Jusdafax 20:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm saddened by all of this. I was puzzled this morning by Wikipedia telling me that Talk:Soccer in Australia had changed, while I could see no change. I followed a chain of links to find this discussion, which nobody had told me about, but which provided yet another platform for some haters to attack me. I will insist that in recent times I have behaved pretty close to perfectly. I have firmly defended a well established consensus on that page. I have done it repeatedly because challenges to that consensus have been posted repeatedly. Some of those challenges have been pretty silly, and abusive of other editors. I ask the critics, Blackmane in particular, should such material be allowed to remain on Wikipedia, unchallenged? Of course there are also more attacks on me above from Orestes, which again, I've only found by accident. I won't respond to those attacks, but I will ask, does AN/I really have to remain the platform for haters to get yet another chance to abuse others, with no consequence? HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

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

IP 178.170.111.84

I've been having a dispute with this user concerning some content on the page on Rape in the United States that he/she added yesterday. The content contained three statements, two of which are not supported by the sources cited. I temporarily removed the content and requested that we discuss the matter on the talk page before it is added back, but the user has insisted on adding it back with only minor edits that do not address the concerns that I've raised.

Also, the third claim that the user makes is that 21.8% of rapes of women are gang rapes. Upon determining the study that this number came from, I was able to verify that it is substantiated by research. However, there is other research, specifically from the National Crime Victimization Survey, which found that only 6.8% of rapes are gang rapes. I added additional content to clarify that there is a discrepancy between the two major government studies, including the lower 6.8% number that I found in the NCVS as well as the higher 21.8% that the user introduced. The user has insisted that this content should be removed on the grounds that the NCVS data is not mentioned in a certain book and that the user has a "feeling that [I am] misinterpreting it." The user seems to think that a well-known and well-respected government survey can be dismissed simply because a book of his/her choosing does not mention it and has declined to provide any explanation for how he/she feels that I am misrepresenting the data. The user's objections to my addition seem baseless.

I believe it would be helpful to have an administrator get involved here to assist in resolving this dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGAgainstDV (talk • contribs) 22:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I am using high quality data from the National Research Council, US Justice Department, United Nations, 2013 academic books etc. I have even provided other references that support the interpretations. On the other hand DGAgainstDV uses personal interpretations of primary data that the National Research Council indicated was unreliable. Basically DGAgainstDV thinks the page belongs to him, rather than the public.178.170.111.84 (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Old-fashioned edit war between these two editors. If they're not both blocked for edit-warring, it might be a good idea to lock the page for a while until they can come to some cooperative agreement. BMK (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, to DGAgainstDV - admins do not decide content disputes, only behavioral ones. Content disputes get decided by discussion and consensus between interested editors, but admins can certainly look at the behavior of all editors and issue warnings or blocks based on it. So, if you and IP 178 don't want to be hammered, I suggest you find a way to come to some reasonable compromise. (I speak from hard experience.) BMK (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Problems with User:50.157.141.113

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 think an admin needs to speak with User:50.157.141.113. I left a polite message regarding WP:V/WP:NOR on their talk page, and the editor responded with an extremely abusive message. I attempted to explain that incivility like this is not permitted, and can result in blocking, and the editor responded with an even more abusive message, and stated that he/she intended to engage in sockpuppetry if blocked. Nightscream (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Pointy behaviour from Kwamikagami

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

---

Could someone tell Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) to stop his pointy behaviour?

On February 2, Kwamikagami made a series of edits which broke {{val}}. These were reverted, and {{val}} TE-protected. After it was TE-protected, Kwamikagami fork {{val}} into {{val2}}, and went on an AWB spree to replace the use of {{val}} in articles by {{val2}}. {{Val2}} was nominated for deletion pretty much right then and there, but he kept at it.

A side-discussion and edit war occured on WP:MOSNUM, mostly concerning the alignment of asymmetrical uncertainties (should the uncertainties in 1.00+0.11
−0.99 be aligned or not), and fought to introduce {{val2}} as a legit alternative to {{val}}. There is currently an RfC on that (Template talk:Val#RfC).

He has a very long history of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Admin Callanecc warned him for his edit warring on MOSNUM [103]. Kwamikagami re-edited the MOSNUM, and Callanec gave him two changes to self-revert [104] [105], but he didn't.

Admin Mr. Stradivarius closed the {{val2}} deletion discussion and deleted/moved it to the sandbox. where before Kwamikagami's was to use AWB to convert {{val}} to {{val2}}, now he's going on an AWB rampage to change the use of {{val}} to {{+-}} [e.g. [106]], claiming "MOS compliance". This is pointy behaviour of the highest order, and makes it a pain in the ass to maintain articles because whenever the RfC on val will close, we'll have to either go through Kwamikagami's edit history and mass revert him, or go on an AWB spree of our own to undo the damage.

Warn him, block him, I don't care, but please do something.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

To sum up: I reverted *my own edits* resulting in no net change to the articles.

I had made a template change (from {{±}} to {{val2}}) to some articles I had been editing, a change for efficiency that had no effect on the formatting, which was already compliant with the MOS. (Cf. my initial change[107] with the partial self-revert Headbomb linked to above.[108] The restored part is where the later change to {{val}} had broken the formatting.) Headbomb got all upset, and had the template {{val2}} replaced with another, {{val}}, which was similar but resulted in the formatting of those articles no longer being compliant with the MOS, and frankly an eyesore. I then reverted my own edits so that the article format was once again compliant with the MOS, as it had been for years, resulting in no net change except for an invisible increase in the use of the template that Headbomb favors, as I only partially reverted myself. The end result is that, for the point Headbomb is contesting, the articles look now exactly as they did before I made the edits that Headbomb initially objected to. I have not done this to the articles Headbomb's been involved with. Perhaps Headbomb should be warned or blocked for making frivolous charges?

As for the change at MOSNUM, that's a warning to our editors that the template recommended to produce the recommended formatting does not actually produce the recommended formatting. Several admins have noted that the discrepancy is problematic. I am amenable to instead tagging the claim as 'dubious' or to any wording that any editor might think is better than my own, but no-one has bothered, nor has anyone seen fit to revert it. I fail to see how that's a problem.

Headbomb's put a lot of work into the template {{val}}, and it appears he's quite sensitive about it, to the point that he's been demanding that the MOS be changed to comply with his template, and that {{±}}, which is used in 25 times as many articles for the format in question, also be changed to match, rather than allowing even the *option* of user choice in the matter. He's welcome to his opinion, but he hardly has reason to get upset if I disagree. (As does nearly everyone else, for example an opinion that was just posted.[109]) — kwami (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Question: Aren't most templates and important functions supposed to be able to be typed on a standard engligh keyboard? How do you expect most users to type ± often? Hasteur (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

{{+-}}, {{-+}} and {{plusminus}} redirect to it. [110] — Lfdder (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Shift+alt/option+= on a standard Mac keyboard will do it without hassle. The somewhat more esoteric code on Windows is alt+(on the right-hand number pad) 241. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• The pages that Kwami edited with AWB are ones that I switched from {{val2}} to {{val}} as part of my close of the TfD discussion yesterday. Given that Kwami was warned by Callannec for edit warring at the MOS on the 13th, it seems poor form to continue the same dispute by switching these pages to a different template. This should be settled at Template talk:Val, where there is already an RfC underway. If Kwami is willing to do that without further edit warring, then I don't think there is a need for any sanctions here.

  On an unrelated note, it would have been nice to have been notified about this discussion; it's a good job I decided to browse ANI this morning, because I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. Callanecc would have probably appreciated a ping as well. Also, "Admin Mr. Stradivarius" sounds far too formal. Just "Mr. Stradivarius" or "Strad" is fine. Or if you really have to put "admin" in there, I'd prefer that you at least make it "Admin, MedCom member, Lua coder and all-round nice guy Mr. Stradivarius". ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're confused. He changed instances of val that used to be ± before he'd swapped in val2 back to ±. That seems perfectly legitimate to me. — Lfdder (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I fail to see how reverting my own edits, because they fail to conform to the MOS, can be considered a problem. Headbomb did not like my creation of the template val2, and it was removed. I then undid my edits that used the now-defunct template. There is no edit war here. Based on your closure summary, I took your edits as a formality in retiring val2, not as a decision to push Headbomb's formatting, which had never appeared on these articles, against the MOS and the majority of editors who have commented. A neutral edit on your part would have been to return the articles to what they had been before I had changed them to the val2 template, and as part of assuming good faith, I assumed that that complications had simply not occurred to you. The alternative would be that you had joined in on one side of a debate that you had resolved to stay neutral of. — kwami (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I see - if the pages were previously using ± and not val, then that is certainly less objectionable. Of course, I assumed that val2 should simply be replaced with val, as it was a direct alternative. However, the best way to resolve this is through discussion, rather than switching articles from one formatting to the other. As there is an ongoing dispute over whether or not to use a monospace font in number formatting of this sort, it would make sense to leave all formatting of that kind alone until the dispute is resolved. Anything that switches one format to another, like converting val to ±, or editing the templates involved, is going to sour the atmosphere and make it that much harder to resolve things through calm and focused discussion. Your edits may not have broken the letter of the edit warring policy, but to abide by its spirit I think discussing those edits first would have been a better move. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You're exactly right: We should not go around changing the formatting while it's under discussion. However, *I* did not change the formatting, *you* did! — kwami (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I assumed that val2 should be changed to val without being aware that the pages were previously formatted using ±. My edits to those articles were to prevent the red text Template:Val2 from appearing where the number should be, which is what would have happened otherwise after I moved val2 to Template:Val/sandbox2 without a redirect. If I had realised that the pages were formatted with ± previously, I probably would have returned them to that state instead. However, the problem here is not as simple as just a mistake in my close that your edits fixed; you have seen for yourself how Headbomb reacted when you moved the pages back to ±. My point is that the less drama-inducing course of action would have been to discuss the edits rather than revert them. I would have been happy to move them back to ± myself if you had let me know of my mistake on my talk page. In any case, we shouldn't dwell on this too much, as it is diverting our attention from resolving the main dispute. It would be best to focus our effort on Template talk:Val so that this can be dealt with definitively. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

And he's still at it [111] on MOSNUM. How much warning does one need before they start heeding them? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if we whip him? — Lfdder (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Lfdder: Please, let's keep this discussion focused on how to resolve the dispute. Suggestions like this are not helpful. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, everybody seemed a bit uptight, so I thought I'd lighten up the mood. Pardon me. — Lfdder (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Really, Headbomb? We make a false statement on the MOS, and we can't tag it as a false statement while we discuss what to do about it? That's ludicrous. — kwami (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no 'false statement' and there was already a note that this was under discussion. The dubious tag is just there because val doesn't conform to your personal tastes. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It's true that the {{dubious}} template is redundant to the existing note - how about replacing them both with {{under discussion-inline}}? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like something that you should discuss over there. If kwami isn't getting warned, blocked (or whipped), this thread should be closed. — Lfdder (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I agree. If the tag really needs to be discussed, then it can be done at WT:MOSNUM, although personally I would concentrate on the main dispute rather than worrying about the tag. And with that we have run out of reasons to keep this thread open any longer, so I'll go ahead and close it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me to put a tag on the disputed text in the MOS, although in my experience discussion on the talk page without tagging is more common. If the statement must be tagged, might I suggest {{under discussion-inline}} as an alternative to {{dubious}}? I think it fits the context of the MOS example better. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. — kwami (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Jay Roberts

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

---

Could an admin please rule on this contentious AFD. There appears to be a clear consensus, and closing it would put an end to all of the unruly behavior happening there. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• I am sorry that you feel that somebody's state of mind and health is unruly behavior!Cowhen1966 (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• What does anyone's health have to do with the notability of an article's subject? Wikipedia is not therapy, and we don't keep articles about non-notable people because of outside factors. BMK (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• please do not turn this into another AFD discussion? This is not what my complaint is about. And STOP talking about my health as if bullying does not affect ones health. If you cared to read my complaint you would see what this is about. This is not an AFD discussion pageCowhen1966 (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• This entry is about the AfD discussion. As long as you make responses which seem to be non sequitors, people are going to wonder what the heck you're talking about.

  (Also, please start a new comment on a new line, and indent using colons. One colon indents one tab, two colons indents 2 tabs, etc. By starting your new comment right behind the previous one, it does not start on a new line. By not indenting, all of your comments start at the left edge, which makes it hard to follow the thread of the discussion.)

  Finally, it was you, in your first comment here, who mentioned your health. If you don't want something discussed, don't bring it up in conversation. BMK (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Again thanks BMK. Nice discussion on bullyingCowhen1966 (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate that intervention has occurred in relationship to User:Cowhen1966 directly, I would like to point out that no admin has addressed my original concern/comment. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

AfDs are given a minimum of 7 days. By the time of the OP, the AfD had only been open for 6 days. An extra couple of days isn't going to hurt things or change the outcome. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Bigpoliticsfan yet again

Despite twice being the subject of recent ANI threads (19th Jan [112] 18th Feb [113]) it seems that Bigpoliticsfan has totally failed to take note of what has been said regarding inappropriate speedy deletion and similar issues. Bigpoliticsfan has just nominated the Tommy Oliver article for speedy deletion as CSD 11 "obviously invented", despite the article being ten years old, with multiple contributors and multiple cited sources. [114] - an utterly ridiciulous nomination, and one that I frankly find incomprehensible. The problem isn't just with speedy deletion nominations either - Bigpoliticsfan has also just tagged our article on Alison Lundergan Grimes with {{lead rewrite}}, {{lead too long}}, {{peacock}} and {{recentism}} tags for no legitimate reason whatsoever, as a cursory inspection of the article will show. I raised these edits at User talk:Bigpoliticsfan, but as usual, the response was a vague apology with no real explanation, and the same old promises that litter the talk page for every prior complaint. (see also this ridiculous tag-fest for another example of cluelessness [115]) It seems self-evident to me that Bigpoliticsfan simply lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia, and rather than waste further time with another round of apologies and worthless promises, we should block this time-wasting 'contributor' indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we definitely have a problem, having looked at their last 40 or so edits I see several problems in addition to the above - this probably shouldn't have been wholesale reverted, at least without a better edit summary, I can't see how the lead is too long in this and I have my doubts about some of the other tags, here the pages do exist, here it did open in 1900 and the edit summary is, at best, unclear, similarly here, I've no idea what the editor intended but it wasn't vandalism here and although possible inappropriate it wasn't vandalism here. That's a disturbing high percentage of problematic edits, especially given the previous discussions. I would be interested in their response - hopefully longer than their last one here - before proceeding further. Dpmuk (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, the main content of Tommy Oliver comes under the heading "Fictional character history". Fiction! Fiction is obviously invented, that's what makes it fiction, geddit? No? Oh well. And Alison Lundergan Grimes, well, er, I give up. Looks like a pattern of gross, energetic and time-wasting incompetence. -- Hoary (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've only had one "interaction" with the editor. I noticed this edit described in the edit summary as "Rv factual errors." However:

• It wasn't a factual error, in fact the edit being discussed was correcting an error
• Bigpoliticsfan didn't revert, but (incorrectly) removed the entire entry
• I asked the editor User_talk:Bigpoliticsfan#Recent_edit for an explanation, but was ignored. In light of other observations, this seems to fit a pattern of an editor who at best is sloppy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

"In light of other observations, this seems to fit a pattern of an editor who at best is sloppy." My thoughts exactly. Based on warnings on their user talk page, Bigpoliticsfan has repeatedly jumped into one area or another and moved quickly and recklessly, in such a manner as to inadvertently cause disruption. From adding speculative information before it could be sourced, to asking for page protection when it wasn't needed, to making comments at WP:RFPP when they shouldn't be (non-admin comments are generally discouraged), to making "drive-by" good article nominations, to tagging BLPs for BLPPROD deletion when they already had references, to inappropriately tagging CSDs, and then most recently for becoming an anti-vandal but reverting people mistakenly, removing information accidentally, and calling good faith edits vandalism.

I really appreciate the enthusiasm of Bigpoliticsfan, their good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, and their willingness to admit that they made mistakes. But how many times can an editor say that they're going to be more careful before we stop believing them? I wish there was a technical way to force this editor to slow down, because I feel like if there was, they could be a net benefit. But in the absence of such tools, I think that this editor needs to make a dramatic behavioral change or we can't allow them to participate here anymore. Even good faith efforts can't be allowed when they accidentally cause disruption over and over again. This editor has been here for 8 months, has been warned repeatedly, has been to ANI repeatedly, and hasn't shown any sign that they have changed. Even if they stop this anti-vandal patrolling, I'm afraid they'll just move to another area where they will make mistakes and cause problems, as that has been their history thus far. -- Atama頭 16:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be open to a request to try mentorship.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

UBM / 149.254.*.*

Hi.

I am not sure if I should report this to WP:RPP, WP:ANEW or WP:AIV but this is definitely disruptive editing.

UBM is a dab page that disambiguates between UBM plc and United Beach Missions. Now, United Beach Missions is deleted sometimes in 2011, so the proper action is to convert the dab page to a redirect to the only existing item, UBM plc. The problem is a guest user from the IP range of 149.254.0.0 reverting the change on the pretext that he thinks the deletion of United Beach Missions was "unjustified". Seems to me a sign of being a fan of United Beach Missions, or something to that effect, who tries to maintain vestiges of a deleted subject in Wikipedia.

Nevertheless, justified or not, keeping a red in disambiguation page serves no purpose. (Yes, having red links are allowed under certain conditions such as the prospect having a notable article, but I am not sure it has merit here.) Please advise.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, looks like Barek redirected the page, it violates Wikipedia:DAB. Epicgenius (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And next time, WP:ANEW is the best place to put reports of edit-warring like this (though it didn't break 3 revert rule just yet — the talk page should have been used instead). Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Er... are you referring to a talk page that he does not see due to his IP constantly changing? Look, you are more than welcome to correct me, but the last two times that I did it, it felt like such a waste of time. I ended up reporting them anyway. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a user talk page (I should have been more clear), but the page's talk page. A referral to the talk page can be in one edit summary, and if the IP user doesn't use the talk page and continues reverting after three reverts, then they should be reported to ANEW. Epicgenius (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The IP is back today, so I have protected the page for a week and will watch-list. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Slanderous vandalism at Nigella Lawson

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 just reverted some really nasty vandalism at the Nigella Lawson article. I think it should be removed from the history too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe I REVDEL'd two edits correctly DP 09:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

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

IP 71.23.178.214

I've blocked 71.23.178.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for repeatedly violating consensus by putting the template {{CongLinks}} into "Further reading", rather than the "External links" section where it belongs, mostly with comment "dmoz". Further thought suggests that, since I was in favor of deletion of CongLinks, I might be considered "involved". Since this covers over 100 edits in the past week, and blocks of 15 per hour, I think immediate action is required.

As I'm not on very often, I won't take offense if others revert this action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I view this block as preventive, since the IP from Chicago posted a statement on Ronz' talk page about how consensus has not been reached on the CongLinks template. To me, this seemed to be a statement of intent to continue pushing the CongLinks template into "Further reading", which would be disruptive. At Template talk:CongLinks#CongLinks is not 'Further reading', the IP and I were going back and forth over the issue, with Ronz weighing in with me against the IP to make it two against one. Note that the IP's arguments were all over the map rather than focusing on what should go in the "External links" section. Arthur Rubin recently offered his CongLinks-as-external-links view to make it three against one.

The IP was carrying out the intended changes hidden under the guise of "dmoz" edit summaries, for instance here, so that makes this block appropriate. We need to get a statement from the IP recognizing that consensus is against CongLinks in "Further reading". I recommend that such a statement be requested as a condition of unblock. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As a second, uninvolved admin opinion, I think this was an appropriate block. -- Atama頭 17:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Anarchistdy

Could somebody please block Anarchistdy (talk · contribs)? This editor has been edit-warring at Rosie Huntington-Whiteley to advertise someone's funeral (example), in spite of having been repeatedly warned on their talk page, and has just left a pile of trolling on my talk page. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I was puzzled at first, trying to figure out what the deal was with the funeral announcement. But then I realized that it was an attempt to use text from an obituary as a source to support information about the subject's grandmother (to support information that was already present in the article). So I don't see it as disruptive editing or vandalism, and while I understand why you'd leave a disruptive editing notice (because it's puzzling behavior) I don't think the template you left was appropriate. The responding template left on your user talk page was poor communication, but I see it as a tit-for-tat response showing that the template you left was inappropriate.

The edit-warring is not ideal behavior, but the editor hasn't violated 3RR (in fact, I count a total of 2 reverts in a 24-hour period there, which isn't particularly excessive). And at least one of those reverts is done in an appeal to WP:BLP because they dispute that the ethnicity of the subject's grandmother is verified by a reliable source. The best course of action is to take this dispute to a discussion, either at the editor's talk page or (ideally) at the article talk page, something that you have failed to do. You deserve a trout at the least for reverting, leaving a template, then taking the issue all the way to ANI without once even attempting to actually talk to the other person like a human being first. -- Atama頭 18:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You are joking, right? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to advertise funerals. The editor had been warned a few weeks ago regarding the same issue, as you can see on their talk. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's hardly "advertising" a funeral. The funeral took place in November 2012, well over a year ago. It was, however, an inappropriate source (a forum on Google Groups). Voceditenore (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not joking. The funeral wasn't a random person's funeral, it was a funeral for the subject's grandmother. And this isn't even a non sequitur, it was being used as a reference for information that already existed in the article that mentioned her grandmother. I'm not arguing that the reference is appropriate, nor am I arguing that the format (especially the inclusion of the entire transcript) was done correctly. But it's not disruptive editing, or spamming, or anything else that you're alleging. The fact that you hadn't taken the time to verify this before making an accusation is bad enough, but the fact that you've dismissed the explanation and asked whether I'm serious is worse. You need to collaborate with other editors, and you cannot communicate with people exclusively through edit summaries, templates, and noticeboards. Communication, collaboration, and consensus is the foundation of this encyclopedia. Not to sound preachy, but really these are fundamentals and it's easy to lose track of them when you're involved in a dispute, but it's important that you at least make the effort to communicate before bringing this to administrators to enforce conduct policies. -- Atama頭 20:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, since it hasn't been said before, falsely accusing people of vandalism is itself disruption, so you need to take more care next time before leaving vandalism templates on another editor's talk page. -- Atama頭 20:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Iraag

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

---

Could an Admin please block Iraag (talk · contribs). He has twice nominated Jeffrey Altheer for Speedy Deletion when it's not eligible as I've explained to him already and posted a fake block notice on my Talk page. Does not have the competence to be here. JMHamo (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

With the reference to JMHamo (talk · contribs). I apologize if I've committed a mistake. But one thing I would like to mention that the article Jeffrey Altheer, which I nominated for speedy deletion does not have sufficient contents. Before blocking me please review the Jeffrey Altheer article and if I've violated any wikipedia policy then do block me. Iraag (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Iraag: your speedy tag at Jeffrey Altheer was 100% incorrect. The article is notable and sufficient as a stub, it simply needs updating which I intend to do later this evening.

@JMHamo: did this really have to come to ANI so quickly? GiantSnowman 17:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• GiantSnowman, it didn't come here very quickly in relation to how quickly the user posts. Iraag's machine-gun speed editing, crazed ANI nominations,[116] strange templates on userpages (especially this one), strange speedy tags (especially this one) and generally excessive postings on usertalk pages are disruptive and either trollish or (more likely) incompetent. And what's this, a threat of further template harassment.. ? I'm not sure. Here he asks five different users in the space of five minutes to create the same article for him: [117][118][119][120][121]. I've merely dipped a toe in the contributions. If anybody can persuade the user to type less fast and think twice before hitting save, maybe they can learn, but I'm frankly tempted to block. What do you think should be done, GiantSnowman — mentoring? Bishonen | talk 22:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC).

I'll add a bit from recent rather typical post, one of several on AndyTheGrump's talkpage: "It's like you are jealous with writing of my articles as you have restored all many articles and even nominated some for speedy deletion. Please don't forget you are only a Admin not the developer or the owner of Wikipedia." If nobody has any objection or anything else to suggest, I do intend to block, even though I believe they mean well. Competence is required. Bishonen | talk 08:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC).

Mentoring could be an option - though I don't have the time to do so - but failing that, a CIR block may well be warranted. GiantSnowman 12:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Apart from everything else, I don't think that Iraag's skills in the English language are sufficient for him to be a useful contributor - this post [122] makes no sense at all until you realise that he thinks 'restore' means 'delete'. As for 'meaning well', at least one of the references for the Isrg Rajan article (which I'm sure was autobiographical) was completely bogus - a link to this page [123], which contains 'ISRG' as a NASDAQ identifier. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That reference is telling, Andy; if it's well-meant, I guess it suggests a WP:CIR abyss. I'd be surprised if anybody else is prepared to take on mentoring the user either, GS, but I'll leave this open for a few more hours in case of further commentary. Meanwhile it's rather striking that Iraag has continued the disruptive editing after he posted in this thread 24 hours ago. Examples: the post on Andy's page I quoted just above, and (this just in) the recreation yet again of an article redirected per per AfD.[124] I don't know if he's not watching ANI, or just not getting what's been said beyond the Jeffrey Altheer speedy-tagging issue. Ping, Iraag! Bishonen | talk 15:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC).

First of all I would like to thank each of you for bringing my mistake or the contributions in light. Well, earlier I nominated Jeffrey Altheer for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion policy:A2 where Jeffrey Altheer is already existing in nl:Jeffrey Altheer. One thing I would like mention that Ping, AndyTheGrump has raised many issues in my editing/ contribution but he haven't discussed with me about any of my article rather he nominated for speedy deletion Isrg Rajan or redirected Chirag Paswan to other article. As well as he have not consider 4 valid references out of 5 references added by me under the article Isrg Rajan (now deleted/nominate by me) and made another issue by taking one of invalid reference. Sir, you all are welcomed to block me and yes! I've no problem as I am a volunteer on Wikipedia as like you all. Thanks!! Ping, Bishonen, Iraag (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Iraag (talk · contribs) is being disruptive on purpose, and I am going to AGF on his edits, but he definitely needs to take some time to read about the basics before he does any further editing. If his strange behaviour continues, then I think a block is appropriate. I will leave him a message on his Talk page. JMHamo (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, an WP:RFB at this time [125] (now removed) is not helpful to AGF. Leaky Caldron 17:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm. I support a block if it comes to it. Very erratic behaviour. JMHamo (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Erratic, yes. Let's not drag this out any longer. I've blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC).

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

User:39 moving articles to their titles with the word temp in parentheses

See User 39 (talk · contribs). I'm not sure what this seemingly relatively new user is doing, but it is WP:Disruptive editing. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I was going to post something similar when I saw him move two grape articles Rotberger (temp) and Gouais blanc (temp). This is very bewildering and looks like trolling. Would appreciate some admins breaking out the mop and bucket for this mess. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually my link was for User 38 while Flyer22 posted for User 39. Looks like an even bigger mess now. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a similar thread on AN about a User 47. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Agne27 (Agne), I first noticed the editor with this move. Anyway, I see that DrKiernan blocked him or her two minutes after my report on this matter. Now it's time to clean up the user's massive mess.

Interesting, Kyohyi; likely the same user.Flyer22 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously the same jerk; seems to have some kind of bot to do this on a mass basis in a few seconds. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Mapswhets2 (talk · contribs)
• User 38 (talk · contribs)
• User 47 (talk · contribs)

All appear involved. Werieth (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_47_moving_pages_without_good_reason. They've also found 32, 33, 34, 39, 40, and 46. These discussions should probably be combined. There's still a huge clean up needed. Voceditenore (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think they could be easily reverted via movepages.py + bash, poke me if needed. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have closed the AN discussion and invited comment here; as this is clearly a wider issue it seems more suitable for ANI. GiantSnowman 19:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• From what it looks like, all of the pagemoves have been reverted for User 38 (talk · contribs). Anyone mind nuking the remnants? Cloudchased (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Vituzzu, because this user moved the articles on a massive scale with some kind of tool, it'll be easier and quicker if administrators or other editors with such tools revert this user; administrator Trappist the monk (talk · contribs) is already on the job. There are also probably some moves that require administrative assistance. Flyer22 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I was also on it but since you already had local resources to fulfil the task I'm no longer needed then :D --Vituzzu (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Once the job is done, anyone mind cleaning up the mess that I inadvertently left behind by pressing some big, scary buttons? Non-admin page moves left the redirects behind. :/ Cloudchased (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Although now blocked, there are still some of the residual XXXXXX (temp) files inserted by User:User 38 that need to be snuffed. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a real problem, as well the pesky vandal knows. We can cover the cracks (as some of us have tried to do by moving those articles back), but unless someone can point me to a quick way of doing it, this vandal will always have the upper hand if he can move a dozen articles per minute. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User 47 for the full list (9 accounts) after checkuser. Voceditenore (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Is there someway of stopping any user from moving more than say, 10 pages per minute, unless they're an approved bot? I can't see any real reason why any human user would move more than one page every 6 or so seconds. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• How did the guy manage to move the pages without being autoconfirmed? WP:MOVE says that users have to be autoconfirmed in order to move pages. Deor (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • My understanding is there that is a page move throttle for new users, but these accounts made a bunch of sandbox edits and waited a couple of weeks in order to bypass the new user filter. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Clearly, someone with knowledge about Wikipedia policies is gaming the system to cause widespread disruption. This stuff annoys me. :( -- Atama頭 20:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• The checkusers and stewards are looking into this problem. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Many pages have been moved back to their proper places - in some cases without leaving a redirect, in others the redir has been deleted separately. Unfortunately, sometimes the double-redir-fix bots got there first so there is more cleanup needed. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

All the page moves have been reverted, and all of the redirects that were sometimes left behind at the "(temp)" names have been deleted. I don't know about the state of the redirs that became broken by good-faith bot edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I got all the broken redirects due to AvicBot's good-faith edits, but someone may want to double-check. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I checked the bot's contribs yesterday, and yeah, everything looks to be reverted. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This kind of vandalism even on high speeds is really nothing new, but I prefer administrators to do this job because they have the suppressredirect right. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@TeleComNasSprVen: You linked to a user page that was deleted more than seven years ago; although registered, that user has neither contribs nor deleted contribs - what is the relevance? --Redrose64 (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, changed the link above. It may not be obvious from logs and deleted contributions, but there was a history there. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 08:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Admin Smartse!

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.

---

Any other admin over Wikipedia please inform Admin User:Smartse! for cancelling the speedy deletion nomination of the article Isrg Rajan as I've added many reliable secondary resources such as newspaper, web etc. for the references but still the admin nominated my article for speedy deletion. Iraag (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And then you blanked the article which technically would allow it to be speedily-deleted per the G7 criterion. -- Atama頭 19:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Iraag:, this is the second time today your speedy deletions have been raised at ANI - see also #User:Iraag - are you aware of WP:BOOMERANG? If you don't know how to properly apply CSD to articles then you should not be doing so at all. GiantSnowman 19:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, last time I nominated a article for the speedy deletion but this time the last editor has took revenge by nominating my article for deletion and appealing other admins to delete my articles. thanks for your help tc. Iraag (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer - the second speedy deletions involving you have been brought to ANI. Firstly your over-zealous tagging of the Jeffrey Altheer article, and now this. GiantSnowman 20:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The article in question was about a 19-year-old with no credible claim to notability. 'Revenge' has nothing to do with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I must be some kind of wizard because someone deleted the article per G7 4 minutes after my comment. -- Atama頭 20:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Atama, you qualify for wizard-ship.  :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Talk:Right-wing socialism

There has been a long standing split tag on Right-wing socialism. The discussion had stalled, so I raised an RfC in order to resolve the issue. I deliberately stayed out of the discussion so that I could be neutral. Everything has been civilised right up until the robot removed the RfC tag. Believing WP:RFC and WP:ANRFC allowed me to close the discussion I did so. I was immediately reverted by one of the participants, so I notified WP:ANRFC. user:Keithbob closed the RfC today [[126]] and was reverted immediately [[127]] by user:Collect. I do not believe either Keithbob or I have acted contrary to the process and it appears that collect intends to edit war with anyone who closes the RfC contrary his preference. Any assistance that you can provide will be appreciated. Op47 (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The "consensus" was all of 4 to 2 which I decline to accept as a "clear consensus." RfC closers do not get a "supervote" in such a case by precedent. The article was not deleted at AfDs in the past where far larger numbers participated, and I regard AfD as being the proper course of action rather than using a 4 to 2 !vote as a means of deletion. Cheers. As for your failure to assume good faith - your accusation that I would edit war on this is absurd and incollegial. Kindly redact that accusation. Where prior AfDs have occurred, it is best to renominate at a new AfD. And I know of no case where the person starting the RfC is considered a proper closer of the RfC which he actually started and using his own "supervote" (I trust no one asserts that 4 to 2 is a "clear consensus to delete an article"). Collect (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand objecting to a closure from a non-administrator. Op47, you realize that ANRFC is an administrator's noticeboard, and Keithbob is not an administrator, so if you were looking for an admin to close it why did you accept Keithbob's closure?

As to whether or not the article must go to AfD... I disagree on that point. The proposal as I understand it isn't to delete the article's content, but to split it up into separate articles and turn the current article into a disambiguation page. I don't see that AfD is required in that case, even if previous AfD discussions resulted in a conclusion to keep the information in one article. I saw, Collect, that you had felt that proper notification wasn't done when the RfC was begun, and so felt that the RfC result was invalid. Would you accept the validity of the RfC if the proper parties (and/or Wikiprojects) were notified and the RfC was extended to give a reasonable time for those people to provide input? That should have at least as much exposure as an AfD. I dislike the idea of moving everything to a new venue when the current location has already had a discussion that can be continued. -- Atama頭 21:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:CLOSE "Where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications, a request for a neutral and uninvolved editor to formally close a discussion may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. [bold added]. Furthermore it says RfC's are closed on the basis of "rough consensus". Before closing the RfC I reviewed all of the comments and also read the two prior AfDs from 2012. At the AfD's there was no consensus for deletion. However the clear majority of the participants favored either deletion or merger and only a minority supported keeping the article as is. Same at the RfC. Therefore I assessed that there was a "rough consensus" to merge the contents (not delete them) and to create a disambiguation page in it's place. Closures are subjective and are interpretations by good faith, involved editors. There is a procedure for challenging a close and allowing a participant to revert the close is not one of them. Again I quote WP:CLOSE "Simply believing a closure is wrong, even where reasonable people would have closed a discussion differently, is not sufficient for requesting review." However if those who disagree with the consensus close, are permitted to continue shopping for new closers, I'm sure they will eventually find someone who will give them the outcome they desire.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

An article split is not the same as deletion, so I see nop good reason why a debate on a proposed split should have been done via AfD -- indeed I might have speedy-closed such a discussion as an inappropriate nom. While it is usual for AfDs to be closed by admins, particularly AfDs resulting in Delete outcomes, since an admin is needed to perform a deletion anyway, other sorts of RfCs can be closed by experienced editors who are not admins. That said, wider participation might be a good thing, and a neutral announcement to editors who cared enough to comment on the past AfD discussions, or who made significant edits to the article, might be a good idea. Atama's suggestion seems worth considering. I have no opinion on the desirability of the proposed split, but if it is eventaully carried out, i trust the editor who does the split will be careful to use {{copied}} or a similar template to preserve the chain of attributions. DES ^(talk) 22:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand, Keithbob, and I don't think that either of you did anything wrong. And Collect is obviously not a neutral observer in this case, and objecting to the closure by reverting was out of process. But at the same time, I think it's reasonable to reach out to more individuals if there are parties who were involved in the most recent AfD who were not informed.

I don't agree that Collect can unilaterally declare that consensus wasn't reached, and it's definitely not okay to shop for closers until someone closes it the "correct" way. I'm just hoping that a compromise can be found here, I don't see how holding the RfC open for another 7 days will hurt (7 days happens to be the amount of time an AfD would normally take). I've also seen precedence where an editor wants administrator closure of an RfC, which again is why RfCs are listed at AN and ANRFC. -- Atama頭 22:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Atama. I know others may disagree but in my opinion notifying participants from an AfD from two years prior would not be prequisite for an RfC of this kind where the proposal is for a merge not deletion. Also, folks should know that this close was/is listed at ANRFC which is where I found it, as I regularly close RfC's listed there, to assist with the backlog. Collect and I have worked together on a number of occasions at BLPN. They are a sincere and dedicated Wikipedian who is passionate about their work. I'm sure this will get sorted out as things cool down. :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Atama. The first lines of WP:ANRFC are:"The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia." Therefore I was expecting an uninvolved editor. Keithbob appears to be an uninvolved editor and therefore Keithbob would do. If I am missing something then I am sorry. + ::::I understand, Keithbob, and I don't think that either of you did anything wrong. And Collect is obviously not a neutral observer in this case, and objecting to the closure by reverting was out of process. But at the same time, I think it's reasonable to reach out to more individuals if there are parties who were involved in the most recent AfD who were not informed.

@Collect. The concensus was 5 to 2 (TFD,RJFF,APerson,BlueSalix & N-HH v Robofish & Collect). I did not "vote" and in any case, I weighed the arguments given as is required (because concensus is not a vote) and was persuaded that the article contained several distinct topics. I did not use a "supervote" since that would be contrary to process and was not required in any case. As I have stated above, my ony concern is that somehow we can resolve the split tag and I am sorry that it is proving so contentious. My naturally lazy tendency is to remove the split tag, but I cannot with a clear concience look at either the number of people who have voiced an opinion or the opinions that have been voiced and say that I can see anything other than a concensus to form a disambiguation page. That "Right Wing Socialism" is notable there is no doubt. Judging by the article and the people who have given their opinions, there is no doubt that it is not a single concept. +

@All. I did follow the process given in WP:RFC and I am not sure how this RfC has failed to involve all interested parties. If it will resolve the dispute then I am happy to extend the RfC by another 2 weeks (say) and place a notice along the lines of "You may be interested in this RfC <<link>>" placed on the talk pages of ALL of the participants in the AfDs. Op47 (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Op47, what I was referencing in my original comment is the fact that you were reverted by Collect in the original closure when Collect stated "rv non-admin closure", then you went for another closer and got a different non-admin to close it. It just didn't make sense; either you disagree with Collect that it's necessary for an administrator to close it, or you find someone who is an administrator to make the decision. If you just get a second non-admin to close it, of course Collect is going to object again. Look at it this way, if the RFC is open another 7 days and at least the original AfD participants are alerted, that satisfies any objections they have. There really won't be any legitimate reason to object any longer. You may even have more support to split up the article from that attempt. -- Atama頭 23:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec)In case you had not noticed it, that was essentially my position at the start (note that those who opined at the AfD should really have been notified of this seems pretty clear, IMHO). I would, however, suggest a "clean start" RfC, and hatting the current one lest anyone look at process and not discussion. I still dislike your claim that I was "edit warring" on this, as my past experience has been that back door deletions tend to cause grave problems . Collect (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a back door deletion. There is no request to delete the page. Even if you feel like this is the same as deleting the page, it isn't, no more than moving a page to another name is deleting it, or rewriting an article is a deletion. Let's put it this way, Collect... If someone opened up an AfD and said "I don't really want to delete this article, I want to split it into multiple articles and turn this page into a disambiguation", the AfD would be closed immediately as not being a real AfD. I've seen it happen before, an AfD is intended to nominate articles for deletion, not change, and AfDs which argue for something other than deletion are often closed. Sometimes an AfD results in something other than "keep" or "delete", true, if some kind of compromise is reached in the midst of the discussion. But an AfD is not the correct process to begin this discussion. It's also improper to suggest that we sweep the prior discussion under the rug because nothing was wrong with that discussion even if you came into it late. -- Atama頭 23:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is a list of every editor who participated in the most recent AfD (April 2012) and has not participated in the RfC:

• Carrite (talk · contribs)
• Monterey Bay (talk · contribs)
• AlexTiefling (talk · contribs)
• Colapeninsula (talk · contribs)
• Colonel Warden (talk · contribs)
• Borock (talk · contribs)
• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)
• JayJasper (talk · contribs)
• Nug (talk · contribs)
• Zloyvolsheb (talk · contribs)
• Outback the koala (talk · contribs)
• Anarchangel (talk · contribs)
• My very best wishes (talk · contribs)

A neutrally-worded notification sent to each individual should satisfy any concern that not enough of a notification was sent out. And again, if this was an AfD, we'd have 7 days to form consensus, so waiting 7 days after notification would give them the same amount of time to participate that an AfD would. -- Atama頭 23:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I checked, every editor on the list is unblocked (so could participate) and with the exception of Outback the koala and Anarchangel, they're all pretty active (those two editors haven't made an edit since 2013). -- Atama頭 23:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, you ping and I sing. This whole topic is inherently tendentious and I don't have much interest in bumping bellies with POV warriors over the future outcome of an article that shouldn't even exist on WP. Quoting myself from the last AfD challenge of this: "Delete - Echoing the complaint I made in the last go-round, there is no such single entity as "right wing socialism." There have been a list of proposed and actual socialist programs through the years characterized by critics as "right wing socialism" — but there is no logical, organic connection between, say, the "right wing socialisms" listed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto and the Bismarckian system in Germany and Bernstein's reformism and the pro-war "Social Patriotism" of the World War I era and the "National Socialism" of Hitler. What we have here is List of things characterized as "Right Wing Socialism" in certain times and places by their critics. Which is not an encyclopedic topic. Each and every sub-topic here is the subject of its own article, so far as I am aware — this is a pure fork. Don't let the wall of footnotes distract you, keep your eye on the ball. Carrite (talk)." That was ignored, pity. Have fun. Carrite (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently when I added that list above, it pinged a number of people, and aside from Carrite coming here to comment here, AlexTiefling, Darkness Shines and Nug have all commented at the discussion page. So in a sense, notification has been sent. I'm going to take the initiative and notify the others who have not yet participated. It's possible that the other editors may have turned off the automatic notifications that occur when your name is mentioned, or missed such notifications. The fact that some of these editors are choosing to participate seems to justify Collect's suggestion that they should have been notified initially. -- Atama頭 18:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've notified every editor on the list above who has not yet commented, with the exception of My very best wishes who has a template indicating that they have retired from Wikipedia, and who has left a message requesting that no more messages be posted on their talk page. My suggestion is to allow the RfC to run for at least an additional 7 days (until 18:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)) to have the proper 7 day wait that an AfD would have allowed. After that time, an administrator can decide consensus, or if it looks like a compromise is in the works that would satisfy most parties then the discussion should be allowed to conclude naturally. -- Atama頭 18:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is sufficient. If this were an AfD it would have been listed via WP:DELSORT to gain the widest community input. --Nug (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It was listed via RfC for more than a month for wide community input. -- Atama頭 23:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

92.163.53.142

Special:Contributions/92.163.53.142 - serial citation spammer - rollback? 113.210.142.105 (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the cites. They appear to be on-topic.--Auric talk 13:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Proxying for banned editor

[128] This IP is openly making edits to Wikipedia on behalf of a banned editor. The IP even links to the off-site post by the banned editor in the edit summaries. Thanks. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:BAN#Proxying it's perfectly appropriate to make edits suggested by a banned user if they are independently verifiable and a net benefit to the encyclopedia. I haven't examined these edits in detail, but having read the original blog post, it pointed out a number of independently verifiable things that could be changed to present a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's okay if the edits are vouched for by someone independent. If the IP is doing everything only at the direction of the banned individual (as a meatpuppet) that's not allowed, nor would it be allowed if the IP is actually the banned editor doing the edits themselves anonymously. Since we operate by assuming good faith, you'd need evidence pointing to either misbehavior for us to disallow these edits. I'll say that I've done similar actions myself, though not for a banned editor. I've worked with an editor who had a clear COI and made edits on their behalf, but I most definitely did so not by proxy. Many of the edits they suggested that I do, I didn't do because I disagreed with them, and others that I did were applied only after a significant discussion and compromise was reached. So I can sympathize with the IP's position if these edits are being done legitimately. -- Atama頭 23:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well yeah, meatpuppetry isn't allowed. But IP's are perfectly valid editors, so unless someone can show evidence that either (a) the edits are not verifiable, (b) the edits are being made directly by Damien, or (c) the edits violate some other policy, then the edits are perfectly fine. Given that Cla68 is a moderator of the site that posted the blog in question, I suspect the reason he posted this thread has little to do with genuine concern over the edits the IP made. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This edit [129] seems reasonable. P.S. I wouldn't know Peter Damien, whoever that is, if he tripped me. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• See banned users. The issue of proxying for banned users is one of the most disruptive that can arise at Wikipedia because the Pollyanna approach of evaluating each edit for its merits flies in the face of WP:Banned means banned. Supporting such edits is a win for liberty, but a large incentive for trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• FYI, this is not a situation of block evasion, as far as I can see. The last version of Peter's userpage as he edited it suggests a UK connexion (he says he went to a UK university), and all the IPs in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Peter Damian are English: one in Yorkshire, and the rest in London or elsewhere in the south. Conversely, IP address 41.130.42.159 is located in Egypt — unless Peter's made a big move, it's someone else. No comment on anything else being discussed here. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• If good information comes as a result of a banned editor making a suggestion on an external site, then the project has been improved. Other than spite, there, is no real reason to reject such an edit out of hand. Tarc (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• John, if you disagree with a fairly long standing portion of our banning policy, I'd suggest you suggest a change in appropriate forum. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Petition

I see myself in an awkward situation by user Lecen.

The article Peter III of Aragon had during two years (since 2011) the image Pedro II de Aragón.jpg on the infobox.

In October 2013, user Srnec changed the image without consensus. We had an edition war, but we began to speak. In this moment, user Lecen (who had had a conflict with me in Pedro II of Brazil) intervened in the article by first time. He accused me of being the cause of the conflict and removed my editions. I said him that was the Srnec's change the cause and that the previous version must be live until the consensus. He didn't hear and presented a complaint against me. And I was punished. Now, he haunts me. I have filed a complaint against another user and he has come to discredit me by my background. And he has returned to delete the previous image, the image of before the discussion, without reasons and also threatens to report me if I restart.--EeuHP (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, aren't you just a fountain of edit-warring? We don't deal with content disputes here, but you do have a significant history of violating the rules. Have you tried following WP:DR properly, or are you simply going to rely on reversion again and again across multiple articles. Just because it's been a month since your last edit war on that article, does not mean it's not blockable DP 00:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Update: the OP has now filed multiple AN3 reports for month-old issues (all closed as stale), and is now complaining around the 'pedia that we're refusing to punish the other party. EeuHP has been advised multiple times that blocks are preventative, not punishment, but they're off in their own world. This WP:BATTLE behaviour is growing tiring ES&L 12:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Before you dismiss this out of hand, have you looked at User:Lecen's intervention?

[130] Edit summary Do it again, please

[131] Edit summary You are edit warring. This might lead to sanctions against you. Please, stop.

[132] Edit summary Don't do that or else I'll have to report you

The OP was edit warring but there seems to be a spot of WP:TAG going on, not to mention a little baiting to breach 3RR. Having had dealings with Lecen before, I have seen him edit warring, baiting and generally abusing other editors but it is rarely commented on because of his GA and FA history. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Look further back ... this is long-term edit-warring over months, and they've done the same thing over a number of articles ES&L 12:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I did, eg [133] its been an issue with both. But for this particular example, Lecen is removing a featured picture to impose his preference. 6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of the other IMHO. And I'm not surprised to see Asyntax involved who I expect to pop up and defend his friend shortly. WP:Brazil works as a definite clique. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of baiting, unless you are referring to the edit summary "Do it again, please", which could easily be an accidental contraction of "don't do it again please". Also, the "featured picture" is the one on Pedro II of Brazil [134] not Peter III of Aragon. EeuHP's preferred image, File:Pedro III de Aragón.jpg, is not featured. Paul B (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A good evidence of baiting is that Lecen never worked in articles of the Crown of Aragon and he decided edit in the article of Peter III, where his old opponent had a discussion with Srnec (who made a controversial change). He ignore that the previous edition was Pedro III de Aragón.jpg and he gave the reason to Srnec and his recent change. After he denounced me and I was blocked (and I couldn't present a complaint against Srnec by violation of the rule of three reversals). And now, I returned and I find him in all the places. He return at the article of Peter III for remove my edition and he threatens me to get another complaint if I don't do what he wants and when I finally present the complaint about Srnec, he is the second who appears to discredit me.--EeuHP (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it would appear that the person bringing the complaint here is unquestionably in the right unless the pictures are mislabeled. The basic requirement for a picture in an infobox is that it show the correct subject. I would never blame an inexperienced editor for not following the rules or for pressing too hard when he's in good faith trying to help the encyclopedia. DangerousPanda, EatsShootsAndLeaves, would you care to comment on whether what he wants to do is right or wrong? DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm somewhat bemused by your comment. What is he "in the right" about? There are disputes about whether one image or another should be preferred on some articles (notably the articles on Pedro II of Brazil and Peter III of Aragon). I don't think there is any suggestion that images of someone else have been used. The dispute concerns accusations of edit warring on one side and of stalking on the other. Paul B (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Pedro III de Aragón.jpg was put by one user in 2011. Srnec change the portrait and put the coin and I oppose. Who cause the edition war? Srnec, because he made a change that was no accepted. We violated the 3RR and finally we talk. While we talk, the previous version prevailed. Srnec himself support the situation during a few time. But then Lecen appears and said "EeuHP, you are the cause of the war and you must stop". I explain the situation, but he don't heard me. He remove the image two times and he denounced me and I was blocked. And when I was blocked, Srnec no needed search consensus. Now, official version say that I was the autor of a controversial change in Peter III of Aragón y you and the other fight for the coin, when until the consensus arrive the image that should prevail is Pedro III de Aragón.jpg.--EeuHP (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked EeuHP for three months for violating WP:3RR at Peter III of Aragon and filing bogus reports at WP:AN3, not to mention taking the same complaints to my talk page and to EdJohnston's talk page (Ed was the last admin to block the user - one month). EeuHP just came off a one-month edit-warring block. They were unblocked early based on this request: "Having most of the i sentence passed, I request the unblocking. If someone is concerned about the possibility of more edit wars, I say that I will stick to the rules scrupulously, with caution and paying attention to detail for not ignore any aspect." I don't know how anyone can justify the user's subsequent behavior. However, if there is a consensus to unblock them or shorten the duration, fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The picture EeuHP reverted to has been in the article for years. Srnec changed it back in Jan and was challenged, but instead of taking it to talk, the two edit-warred over it till EeuHP was finally blocked. EeuHP is right in reinstating the older picture in the absence of consensus. Regardless, he's stopped edit warring and 'filing bogus reports' and came here, so this block's rather punitive, on the face of it. However, this user's now well on their way to becoming a persona non grata, so I suggest the 3-month block is upheld in hope that they'll fill the time they used to spend on Wikipedia warring over pictures of dictators with something a little more productive. — Lfdder (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not strictly accurate - they didn't stop edit warring after they opened this ANI, or after I attempted to discuss the issue with them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Lfdder's account is not accurate at all. Srnec replaced the image with an edit summary explaining, quite logically, the reasons. EeuHP tried to edit war. His edit summaries indicate total ignorance of the historical issues with the image, so Srnec's reaction is understandable. However Srnrc initiated discussion by self-reverting [135], indicating a willingness to discuss not displayed by EeuHP. EeuHP continued to revert war with all other editors. There are many images in articles that have been there for years, but which are totally inappropriate. Articles on medieval history can remain untouched for a long time with erroneous content or the wrong image. Even articles on later, better documented periods, can have this problem. The article on Geertje Dircx [136] had a reproduction of Rembrandt's Danae with a totally absurd caption that she had the face of Geertje. It was there for years. Paul B (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

What part of my account is inaccurate? I don't think you understand how consensus building works. Also, it takes two to edit war. — Lfdder (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I wrote. I already answered the question you asked. The "point" you make in the last sentence has already been addressed in my first reply. Paul B (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think I do. Put simply, once reverted, you don't revert again. Srnec initiated discussion after what -- about 10 back-and-forths? The user's ignorance isn't exactly relevant to the edit war. — Lfdder (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There were nowhere near ten. Such silly hyperbole does not help discussion. There were three before the self-revert, and they were based on the legitimate fact that EeuHP's edit summaries were wrong, which fact was pointed out in the revert. Ignorance of the facts is a good reason to revert an edit. If the editor is simply wrong, and can be shown to be wrong, it is understandable that the editor who knows the facts will want to remove the inaccuracies. You can't just trot out "it takes two to edit war" as if that means both participants are somehow automatically equally guilty all the time. That's far too glib. We have to take circumstances into account, as there is always a grey area from wanton vandalism, through abject ignorance to legitimate disagreement. Paul B (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, and then they continued warring. Choosing a picture is obviously to a very large degree subjective. At first, EuuHP didn't seem to understand 'contemporary', but then they simply disagreed about which one's better to have. — Lfdder (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Regardless, he's stopped edit warring and 'filing bogus reports' and came here" - he continued to edit war after he came here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that wasn't Paul's complaint. — Lfdder (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed, but unsurprised. I attempted to mediate, but the language barrier is a problem, and I think some of the issue is EeuHP's weak grasp of English. EeuHP's initial reversion may have been right, but the latest set of edit warring cannot be defended - as Bbb23 rightly stated, they were unblocked after specifically stating that they would not edit-war. Particularly as Srnec was not the only user to revert them either time around. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well he may have been rude but he was also correct; using a picture of a coin when we have a nice portrait is just plain silly. Why do established users get to skate time after time for rudeness yet the newbies get marched to the gulag on offense #1 ? Tarc (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

For me, this is about conduct, not content, but, regardless, this is hardly "offense #1" for this user.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No Tarc he wasn't. The portrait, as is explained in the discussion, is just a generic king-picture created hundreds of years later. The point was made in the original edit summary. There are lots of these from the 16th century when imaginary galleries of kings were created. When we have nothing contemporary we have to make do with such images, as in Macbeth. But we shouldn't use them because they just "look nicer". Paul B (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I find it a bit hard to believe that a half-dozen other wikis are using the image if it is incorrect, but if so, then images such as File:Rey_Pedro_III_Aragón.jpg would still be far preferable. Tarc (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It's very easy to believe, for the reasons I've given in detail, and Srnc himself gave in detail. It's not "incorrect"., though the costume is certainly incorrect for the period. It's just a non-contemporary king-gallery portrait. Paul B (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

OMICS Creations

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.

---

OMICS Creations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some group editors doing syndicate editing ande redirecting films and movies page OMICS Creations to Scientific Publishing OMICS Publishing Group. CU is required and/or investigation required about these people who are representing as experts but behaving as culprits. This is a Preposterous activity at WP. I request sock poppet investigation and full protection for this article.Movieking007 (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• What's needed here is a CU to deal with WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Now at AN3 as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The AN3 can be closed - wasn't even filed correctly. And the OP can be warned for forum-shopping. ES&L 12:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm speaking of the AN3 report that I filed re Movieking007, who has bright-line violated 3RR. That one was filed properly and should result in a block. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. Movieking007 blocked for 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 16:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC).

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

Mt. Gox -- current event

This is just a heads-up; nobody is doing anything bad, but some people are getting carried away.

Mt. Gox, the troubled Bitcoin exchange, shut down today, with no warning and no details. NYT: "Apparent Theft at Mt. Gox Shakes Bitcoin World". Forbes: "Bitcoin's Price Plummets As Mt. Gox Goes Dark, With Massive Hack". Bloomberg: "Mt. Gox Bitcoin Exchange Goes Offline as Peers Lash Out at Firm". WSJ: "Mt. Gox Website Unavailable; Home Page Appears to Have Been Deleted". All sorts of wild rumors are going around, being echoed through the press, and some are being put into Wikipedia. There's heavy press coverage, but nobody really has solid info, except that their web site and Twitter feed have been blanked and the phones don't answer. There's a "leaked reorganization plan" floating around, which may be fake, but some news outlets believe it. A few more eyes on the article would be appropriate for the next 24 to 48 hours to keep the rumor level under control. --John Nagle (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for a day or two of semi-protection on Mt. Gox. Junk edits from anons, an SPA with an obvious name, etc.[137]. Nothing really bad, just too much noise. (Press coverage is very heavy - over 800 articles in Google News just for today. Unfortunately, it's mostly the same sparse info being echoed through blogs, op-eds, and secondary sources.) --John Nagle (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for a few days. I looked at the page history and there are many reverts in a short period, enough to justify semi-protection in my opinion. -- Atama頭 23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That should do it for now. John Nagle (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Assistance needed: Liliane Bettencourt

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.

---

Liliane Bettencourt has been revised by multiple authors to include information about ongoing scams linking directly to the Wikipedia article. This has been occurring since at least February 7 [138].

A discussion has been started, and the justification for inclusion of the scam email information is WP:IAR. Full details and justification for using WP:IAR are on the talk page. As of this time, no solid argument has been presented to refute WP:IAR.

Regardless of this, editors continue to remove the information from the page without discussion on refuting the applicability of WP:IAR.

173.59.201.71 (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Talk page is clear enough on this. You just wont hear it. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Full text of conversation, copied from the Talk page:

---

In light of repeated removals of warnings regarding this Wikipedia page being used for scam emails, I have invoked WP:Ignore All Rules, since there really is no clear rule on what to do when Wikipedia is being directly used to scam people. In this case, scammers are linking DIRECTLY to the Wikipedia page.

Wikipedia is about making a positive impact on people's lives, and providing them accurate information. In this case, a factual Wikipedia page is being used by scammers for non-factual purposes, in order to take advantage of others through Advance Fee Fraud scams.

The decision to invoke WP:IAR was not taken lightly, and in this case I feel is very appropriate.

Editors keep removing the warnings, but only with the justification that it's "not encyclopedic". I think Wikipedia has evolved beyond just being an encyclopedia, since it is used and updated real time.

I also challenge any editor who wants to remove the warning - which does more harm or more good?

The warning is only one line in italics at the beginning of the article, and does not impact the content of the article, or affect its' NPOV. Very little harm is done by having the warning present, while at the same time the good it can do is tremendous - it could prevent many people from falling for these scams.

On the flipside, should the warning be removed, people may believe the emails are genuine, since they refer to a trusted source (Wikipedia).

173.59.201.71 (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Despite multiple attempts at communicating with other editors, this keeps getting removed without discussion. Please discuss it here. I have moved the information to its own section on the page, citing sources. I'm very disappointed by Wikipedia editors removing this content without discussion. I have invoked WP:IAR to improve Wikipedia and the knowledge of would-be victims. Of course apparently because I'm just an IP address and not a registered account, I am immediately seen as a newbie and my views disregarded. I don't have any barnstars, or thousands of contributions on Wikipedia, so I have very little weight here it seems. 173.59.201.71 (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You're certainly correct that after multiple back-and-forth reverts this should be discussed here. However, your addition to the article doesn't belong there. There is an inconceivable amount of spam of that kind. If we had to make a mention on every article of someone who's been the butt of such a spam email, we'd have a lot of work. Long story short, this occurrence fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 13:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel this is a unique case, in that Wikipedia is being used directly. If scammers learn they can't send people to Wikipedia to "verify" their emails, they'll turn elsewhere, and this becomes a self resolving problem. Wikipedia community does care about their site being used to scam people, right? 173.59.201.71 (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't, in any way, verify the credibility of that spam email. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 13:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

To the average non-technical user, it does. Someone sees a link to a trusted website, and they automatically assume the email is genuine. It's called social engineering. 173.59.201.71 (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to it this isn't "Wikipedia - World police". Caveat lector applies both with Wikipedia and spam emails. Fraggle81 (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's very arguable. By your logic, IMDb would need anti-piracy notices on all its pages because torrent sites tend to link to IMDb on pages where you can illegally download a movie. Hospitals would need to constantly hand out flyers because Viagra-spam says "proven by doctors". You see where I'm going. All that withstanding though, mentioned policies apply. I'll stay out of it (action wise) for now, though. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 14:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

When people are at a piracy website, they know they're getting pirated films. Viagra spammers don't send people to a hospital to get Viagra. The best precedent I can actually think of would be Western Union. Because Wester Union at grocery stores, etc. is being used "directly" by scammers (in that they send their victims there), Western Union now has flyers/pamphlets at the Western Union counter discussing the different scams which actively take place and leverage Western Union. 173.59.201.71 (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Following the IAR flowchart... Does it break the rules? Yes -> Does it break the rules because the rules are wrong? No -> Are you sure this change is a good change by common sense and it improves the encyclopedia? Yes -> Ignore the Rules. The true contention here then is, "Are you sure this change is a good change by common sense and it improves the encyclopedia?" If Wikipedia is being used directly by scammers, then it only makes common sense to subvert their efforts and act accordingly. Does it improve the encyclopedia? Yes, in that it provides information which is critically needed by someone who will be visiting the page as a direct result of a scammer sending them an email, as well as raise awareness for others. Hence, my justification for WP:IAR 173.59.201.71 (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It's also important to note, I am not the only person who has attempted to add information warning of the scam emails. 173.59.201.71 (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

---

173.59.201.71 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Like I just said, the Talk page is clear enough. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what more I can add to this. I don't feel this is the sort of thing IAR was meant to cover. Also references given to support the statements in the article are from forums/blog posts which aren't suitable anyway. Fraggle81 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the section. The only cited sources were a forum and a blog, both inherently unreliable. I have done this as a controversial statement in a biography article not suported by reliable sources, and under WP:BLP it should nto be re-added without achiving consensus first. DES ^(talk) 17:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with DESiegel. There is no conceivable reason to keep this factoid in. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Vnisanian2001

Vnisanian2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Warned for years and blocked twice in August 2013 for disruptive editing. Continued warnings since most-recent block have not eliminated behavior.

Most-recent edit to Bad (Michael Jackson song) includes revision that does not match information tagged with referenced material in prior revision, corroborating pattern of behavior in disruptive editing. Although reference linked in article shows 1987, unsigned message from the user left on my talk page as well as the article talk page shows user still does not understand WP:V despite warnings as far back as 2011. Additionally, the song in the topic of the article was not even recorded until 1987 and was released later that year in September, details that call into question the user's WP:COMPETENCE as the user is suggesting the music video was filmed during 1986, prior to actual recording of the song.

Multiple other talk messages not adhering to WP:~ are further examples of user not meeting WP:COMPETENCE.

AldezD (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Problem with an editor

I asked a question regarding the Olympics articles here: [[139]] and I'm having a problem with one of your editors. How do I deal with this, since I'd appreciate a straight answer to the question rather than the sophomoric responses that I've been receiving (in other words, this guy's being a dick. Thanks. 24.212.139.102 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, while not exactly a personal attack I do discourage you from linking meta:Don't be a dick in reference to someone, it's only likely to inflame the situation. In any case, my advice is to speak with the WikiProject Olympics people. They help make decisions about Olympics-related article, including what we use as naming conventions (they have a Manual of Style though I couldn't see anything there to address your specific questions). They could better answer your questions and hopefully you'll receive a more helpful response there. -- Atama頭 19:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Good advice on talking to the Olympics project folks which I'll do when I get a chance, but I'd still like this guy dealt with (I realize that it's probably not serious enough for you to officially sanction him, but perhaps a stern talking-to? If you check his talk page, it's not the first time that he's come into conflict with other editors. And on the topic of talk page, I find the banner at the top of his to be offensive, and probably not the best way to project the image of a kinder, gentler wikipedia). It's people like him that discourage people like me from becoming regular editors, and from what I understand there have been concerns about declining numbers of wikipedia editors, so it seems to be that it's incumbent for admins such as yourself to take a more proactive approach when dealing with disruptive elements like him. Thanks for the reply. 24.212.139.102 (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You're correct. Lugnuts has come into conflict into the past because of their communication style. It can and should be improved, though enforcing conduct on a person is difficult. I could drop a suggestion on Lugnuts's user talk page, but I doubt it will be received with anything short of dismissal, judging by their history. While rude, the editor's responses to you didn't measure up to a personal attack either, so there's not much that can be done at the moment. The banner at the top of Lugnuts's user page could be offensive to some people, but Wikipedia is not censored, the banner isn't directed at a particular person or group of people, and if you click the link at the top of the banner I think that the banner is a quote from a comedy series, not an actual message to anyone.

You're going to run into rude people on Wikipedia, just as in real life, I do all the time too (in both places) and sometimes you have to work with them. I do encourage you to create an account despite that, as it will help make the site more accessible to you and it will improve the way that others react to you if you have a verifiable edit history (I wish people treated IP editors better but there will always be a bias). I think from your conduct here and the good questions you raise at the article talk page that you have a lot to offer the project. -- Atama頭 21:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with the user above that the treatment you got from User:Lugnuts is rude, inappropriate, and sadly not the first time that editor has tasted the newbies. That said, it's at the lower end of the spectrum and any form of sanction we could impose probably won't stick. If it's any consolation, looking at the discussion, it reflects a lot more positively on you than it does on them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC).

user:Zmaher

Zmaher (talk · contribs)

I don't know what to make of Zmaher. While I can only assume they want to help, a lot of their edits leave a lot to be desired. They do not communicate whatsoever (see talk page: a long list of messages and warnings without any reply) and they do as they see fit. I reported them earlier at AIV too, which did lead to a personal message. That was mostly about adding copyrighted material, but even now Zmaher doesn't follow suit. Adding a lot of trivial information on concert tours for instance: here, here and here. He was also issued some warnings on not playing the genre warrior. I don't want to see Zmaher go, their edits on Russa-United States relations for instance are often constructive (albeit, they do lack a source). But with their no-regards-for-others attitude, these edits aren't helping at all. --Soetermans. T / C 20:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment- having reviewed a lot of their edits, there appears to be an issue with competence. They were given a final warning by PhilKnight in October 2013 for disruptive editing (including copy vio), they never use edit summaries despite some large changes to articles that all end up reverted, and refuse to engage with other editors. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• They wouldn't be the first one to find discussion problematic. Why some feel that way I cannot guess. Soetermans, you don't want to see them go, but what do you want? PhilKnight warned that they might be blocked if they're edit warring again, and a kind of edit warring is going on in Wherever We May Roam Tour and Nowhere Else to Roam. On the whole, their behavior seems on the low end of the disruption scale, though I have yet to see a net positive. Perhaps Phil can comment and tell us if this (mild) edit warring half a year after his last warning is reason enough for a block. Don't get me wrong, there may well be other reasons for a block (the trivia, etc.). Drmies (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say a block might be in order. Two weeks or something, I don't know. Just so that they finally get the message. By their contributions, we can assume they must've spotted a new message pop-up that mentioned this here discussion. Instead, Zmaher edited the Russia-United States relations article again, which has already been undone. --Soetermans. T / C 13:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

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.

---

Reports of multiple vandalism and edit wars on talk page. Consider revocation of edit rights and blocking of this user. User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bides time (talk • contribs) 21:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Reports by editors who haven't read WP:NOTVAND or WP:3RRNO. Some background to this dispute: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon Bohle and [140]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please note that false accusations of vandalism as you made here are possible grounds for sanction to yourself. Be very careful not to accuse another editor's edits as "vandalism" unless you are 100% sure that they are only acting to damage Wikipedia. In this case, TheRedPenOfDoom was making changes to the page in an effort to maintain our biographies of living persons policy, which requires that we be particularly careful to ensure that all information on such biographies is properly sourced. There is no policy against editing an article during a deletion discussion, in fact it is quite common and is often done to demonstrate why an article should be kept (by expanding the article and adding sources to establish notability. -- Atama頭 21:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a totally uncalled for action. TheRedPenOfDoom has acted 100% within logical procedures. The article in question was an is seriously flawed, even if the subject might be notable (which I clearly do not think it is, I am the one who nominated the article for deletion, something I have only done a very few times). Actually, I also have to say I am beginning to suspect that Bides time may have a conflict of interest in editing this article. I might be seeing an issue that is not there, but at least one other person has at least wondered if their might be a conflict of interest involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as per John Pack Lambert and Atama above. TRPOD has done nothing improper in any of the linked articles as far as I can see. WP:BOOMARANG time, anyone? DES ^(talk) 00:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Krutoi dezigner was repeatedly blocked for edit warring and personal attacks and when unblocked returns and continues where he left off

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:Krutoi dezigner, A.K.A. User:G_PViB, A.K.A. User:Tempac3, A.K.A various IPs, has been repeatedly blocked for "abuse of editing privileges", "disruptive editing", "edit warring", "personal attacks or harassment", and "personal attack". Said editor was blocked for 24 hours on, 1 January 2014...and blocked again for one week on, 2 January 2014...and blocked for one month on, 10 January 2014...and blocked again for one month for , 25 January 2014. This time with talk page access revoked. This information can be verified on said user's Block Log, contributions and Talk Page (assuming he has not deleted the later).

He has returned and immediately resumed his edit warring and continues personal attacks. ie "Deleted edits added by a special boy..." This is nothing more than a reference to his past personal attacks. Such as referring to other editors as " mentally unfit to edit Wikipedia in a fair and balanced way. I remind you that even admins were banned from Wikipedia for mental episodes", " psychotic and a borderline autistic.", "psychotic imbecile (who lives with his mommy, I bet)", etc. Clearly, User:Krutoi dezigner believes that anyone who disagrees with him has mental health issues.--RAF910 (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please disregard...User:Krutoi dezigner has been blocked indefinitely by User:Georgewilliamherbert for "Personal attacks or harassment: Immediate return to personal attacks after month long block expired".--RAF910 (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Tendentious IDHT even after mediation

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 India Against Corruption article has been subject to a lot of controversy due to the name been used to refer to a highly notable popular movement of 2011-2013 and also, on and off, by a non-notable underground arm of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Army. Various contributors claiming to represent the HSRA IAC have attempted to have the article look something like this, notably AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk · contribs) and the now-blocked open proxy 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk · contribs).

They've made their attempts on the article itself and, more recently, via the Help Desk, WMF & OTRS, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/India_Against_Corruption (closing statement) etc. They've also tried routes such as RfC and WP:3O on the article talk page.

Now, they're back are HRA1924 (talk · contribs) (which should be blocked as representing an organisation) and there seems to be no end to their WP:TE, WP:IDHT, inability to understand how Wikipedia works, and continued use of chilling legal terminology such as "slander", "defame" etc (see, for example, their latest posts at Tiptoety's talk page linked above).

Do they have any other recourse? Have we reached the point where we should block on sight for a combination of NLT, meatpuppetry/socking, incompetence, not editing as an individual etc? - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Sitush has filed this ANI in violation of the notice at the top of this that this page is not to be used for "privacy related issues or potential libel/defamation matters"

• Our "Escalation of OTRS" is based on the suggestion from Phillipe Beadette of WMF after the mediation was closed [141].
• Our use of the "role account" "HRA1924" is strictly limited to availing grievance redressal processes Wikipedia offers. We are not editing articles or article talk pages. We are forced to adopt this route as the email/OTRS systems at Wikipedia has clearly told us on 19.Dec.2013 and 4.Jan.2014 that there is no "Central Authority" for redacting article content and WP:DR.
• IAC is forced to adopt such a route because Indian citizens who access Wikipedia through the .IN domain "wikipedia.in" (or otherwise) are being deprived of their legal rights to the centralised "Grievance Officer" they are entitled to by India's laws - this is a statement of fact and not a legal threat. Other US based Internet content providers have such a centralised system in place, and IAC uses it regularly to delete libelous content, and we confirm that the centralised "Grievance Officer" system works and works very well too.
• The main dispute in the article is whether "Anna Hazare" equates with "India Against Corruption". Sitush refused to discuss our sources, or the challenge we posed to the sources he used for his baseless claim. IAC regularly objects to news reports which equate Anna Hazare/Team Anna to IAC. For example today this [142] was corrected by the reputed news organisation to this [143]. And the change was carried out within 8 minutes of our email complaint (the emails of which are retained by us).
• IAC does not intend to interact with the Wikipedia community on this issue after the mediation was closed, we are following the processes the WMF indicates to us to get the defamatory text which was inserted solely by User:Sitush about us deleted or corrected. From now on we shall only interact with persons competent to assess our grievance and take suitable action.
• We are also advised, although we can't locate the WP policy just now, that if a party who has agreed to mediation drops out to avoid justifying/discussing his edits which are at issue - it is a behavioral issue for which that editor can be banned. We say that User:Sitush is such an editor who deserves to be banned.
• Sitush has been unable to show any other person who claims to be India Against Corruption. In fact Sitush has consistently said that our legal rights to the name / trademark "India Against Corruption" are not relevant to the content of the article.
• Sitush wrongly says that we are from HRSA - we are not. HRA and HRSA are 2 different animals (the Wikipedia article for this is incorrect).
• Sitush wrongly projects that we are an "underground" operation. We have denied it - and he could not prove it.
• Nobody has edited this article while claiming to be from HRA-IAC. Please show us such a diff. In fact we had specified at the start of our intervention that we have a conflict of interest which precludes us from editing this article.
• We have openly declared on the User Page that this role account is for a specific purpose. If Wikipedia has a problem with it, let the WMF provide us an alternative - such as a centralised Grievance Officer.
• Finally, we have not made legal threats. Our usage of terms like "defamation" and "slander" is to provide the policy basis for the BLP violations on this article. Sitush was unable to counter the sources /citations we provided wherein the defamed BLP subjects have publicly denied the libels they are RSS / communal persons. HRA1924 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. As someone who has crossed paths with this before, I would like to say a few words in reply.

• They advised you contacted an OTRS admin only to complain about any OTRS volenteers; They have no other powers
• Per WP:ROLE, role accounts are not allowed
• Wikipedia is based in the USA, therefore has to follow US laws, not Indian ones
• True, the live version of the article appears not to mention IAC
• From what I can see, the WMF invited you to use OTRS only to complain about other OTRS users; My OTRS access rights do not include the -q queue though
• I am not aware of any such policy
• Yes. This is a private website, therefore you have to follow the rules of the website, which say that Everyone is equal

As far as legal threats go, "defamation" and "slander" have very specific meanings, and are often not appreciated by many of the community, so I would avoid them whenever possible. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I filed this as a behavioural matter, not a privacy/defamation one. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The account in question, HRA1924, indicates on its talk page that it "does not necessarily accept Wikipedia's Terms and Conditions". Any user which admits to being a role account, which throws around legal threats while denying that they are legal threats, and which does not accept the terms of use of the website should be indef blocked. If they want to work to resolve problems within the rules, they can do so, but otherwise they have no inherent right to edit here. BMK (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know much about this issue. I don't know what a "role account" is either, but anyone, such as user:HRA1924, who was (i.e. literally) born yesterday (on Wikipedia,) and who in his fifth or sixth edit has appeared on ANI and has written a twelve-point memorandum, looks suspicious to me. Sitush is being quite kind with these guys. The lead of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association, for example, describes the organization as a "revolutionary" organization. In reality, they were a bunch of young men, only vaguely socialist, who had created a cult around sacrificing their lives violently fighting the British. They were part terrorist, part revolutionary, part cult, part idealistic youth, and part disturbed youth, whose real contribution to India's nationalist struggle was somewhere between zero and negligible. That is what the scholarly sources say. In India these days, it has become fashionable to discredit Gandhi and idolize these men. So, now they are suddenly "revolutionary" with deep knowledge of Marx, Engels, Proudhon, Saint-Simon, Paris Commune, Bakunin, Lenin, ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see [144]

• "Mediation is voluntary. Mediation aims to settle a question about Wikipedia content through guided discussion. Its result therefore requires the consensus of the participants in a dispute. Forced participation is incompatible with the nature of the mediation process, so we cannot compel a party to participate in mediation. However, the refusal by an editor to take part in mediation in conjunction with a refusal to discuss one's position vis-à-vis content may constitute edit warring or disruptive editing, to which the response is usually blocking by an administrator."
• Mediation is the ultimate formal dispute resolution policy at Wikipedia. Sitush was granted every opportunity to participate, after having agreed - in fact we all waited for him to recover his health - he refused to participate to defend his edits - which are at the heart of the content dispute. The final order in the mediation is that the mediation is closed because other parties did not participate. So legally speaking - the content dispute is decided in IAC's favour. Wikipedia is very much bound by India's laws in addition to US laws within India - WMF has a registered domain "wikipedia.in" which is the gateway portal for Indian users to access Wikipedia services.
• We agree that Wikipedia community is not competent to decide legal issues or jurisdictions. Lets leave matters to the WMF, now that the content issue is decided in IAC's favor and we are processing the deletion of the now settled content dispute under our pre-existing Email/OTRS. The OTRS volunteers were "incompetent" (which is not a deregatory term) at the time because there was no clarity then on the content dispute - unlike the present time.
• Insofar as ROLE is concerned, our real-world identity is verified through the email/OTRS exchanges or any other additional mode WP chooses to verify us by. HRA1924 (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A word from the dispute resolution community about the voluntary nature of dispute resolution: I'm a very frequent volunteer at all levels of content dispute resolution. Participation in dispute resolution is always voluntary and no one may be compelled to participate. To say that backwards, failing to participate in DR is never a matter which should cause an editor to be blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned. That does not mean, however, that such a failure cannot be taken into consideration by an administrator or by the community in deciding whether or not an editor is editing in a disruptive manner or in a manner which is not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Failing to take part in DR is not alone disruptive, just as failing or refusing to discuss one's edits is not alone disruptive, but it can be part of a disruptive pattern. On the other hand the reasons for failing to take part in DR can also be taken into consideration: Frustration with another editor's disruptive editing or other misbehavior can certainly justify a desire to simply not engage with it further. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here, just trying to provide a conceptual framework. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks "Transporterman". We would like to supplement your comments. (BTW, its nice to deal with this is a neutral way as you do). Ours is a complex content dispute with many dimensions and sourcing issues, BLP violations (and potential BLP violations - when we consider that the individual's named in the article are not co-terminus with the organisation(s) they are affiliated to) in fact you had expressed exactly this on the archives of the article's talk page. It is undeniable (no matter what Sitush says) that our case has serious BLP, privacy, pptential libel issues. This is not the page to continue a concluded mediation dispute. The WMF has arranged the voluntary mediation facility where we could discuss/resolve the content dispute with the content's author Sitush. This is a structured formal process conducted under the supervision of a nominated highly experienced Admin like yourself. Sitush voluntarily agreed to participate. After the issue were framed (which is only the first step in a long process) he opted out and refrained from defending his edits. His reasons for opting out are irrelevant as he could have asked the Mediator to control / manage the process, or the Mediator could have intervened suo-moto. The factual position now is that Sitush has refused to defend his edits, his sources or controvert the counter-sources we provided in Wikipedia's ultimate formal dispute resolution process, and hence either WP community or WMF is obliged to delete his contributions to the article about us. We also point out that Sitush had repeatedly tried to "POV_FORK" the article whoich we objected to as we are the legal right users and trademark holder for "India Against Corruption". Sitush also failed to controvert the sources we provided wherein the BLP subjects have refuted the statements added in by Sitush. HRA1924 (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "refuse to defend" my edits. I'd been defending them for months and at the stage you are referring to I simply gave up repeatedly restating my position and repeatedly trying to explain our policies to you. I know that you do not accept those of our policies that you dislike but you cannot pick and choose. I specifically requested that someone pinged me if there was a new development, rather than us going round in circles. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no requirement for the organization to delete the items as any editor can delete them if they are indeed BLP violations. That being said since this is a huge land mine area you will want to ensure they actually are BLP violations. If something is considered unpopular but still can be linked to reliable sources it may be included in the wiki as it meets the threshold for inclusion. If it is poorly sourced, the source has been misrepresented, or it utilizes original research would all be extremely prevalent ways to identify if something would violate these problems. So in short if you can show that the statement hasn't been attributed to a source BLP rules but if the individual has simply rehashed what an RS says it doesn't matter if it is unfavorable. Further legal threats are never the answer since all you are trying to do is create a chilling effect to get an end goal. Someone that is honestly looking into improving an article on anything should be done with reliable sources, patience and above all understanding that other people on here do as best they can with what they have on hand. If you feel that it paints a subject poorly you could always dispute neutrality and ask for an RFC which would yield much better results than wondering in and threatening people. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Groups and organizations (official or unofficial) can't have Wikipedia accounts which are for individual editors. Bottom line, I'd drop the "we" and allow only one user to access this account or you're likely to find yourself blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are we wasting time over this pseudolegalistic bollocks? Block HRA1924 indefinitely per WP:NLT and WP:NOTHERE, and be done with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That's what I'm doing now; there's no need to waste our time on bullshit like this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Add issues with the user name as well. "We" is used several times - it definitely represents the group and may (or may not) be shared. And the disclaimer on their user page about not necessarily accepting the terms and conditions is interesting. Ravensfire (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Photo vandalism

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

---

Hi, I noticed some strange edits from Fanboy165. User added a few pictures to articles, but the pictures have nothing to do with the subjects. Here are the photos in Commons. The photo at Fijit Friends doesn't depict a toy, it depicts Dora the Explorer. The photo that was added to Blue's Room is a screen capture from the bottom of Amazon.com. No blue dog is depicted. (I have nominated this pic for deletion, but not the others.) And this screencap doesn't depict anything of note, nor is it used anywhere of note. I don't believe the user is here to build an encyclopedia. For example, here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest reverting them, explaining why you did so, and tag the images on commons, as they are probably copyright violations to some degree, anyways. I wouldn't tag them as having ill-intent, but they seem to want to help, so we should give them the benefit of the doubt here before scaring them off. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at all of their edits, they are 95% vandalism; not "oops I didn't know" vandalism, but intentional vandalism. I've blocked indef as a vandalism-only account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for catching that, as I didn't go in-depth into their edits before I wrote that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Dispute at V. S. Naipaul

There is an ongoing dispute over editorial control and overall direction at V. S. Naipaul. The primary issue is one of apparent WP:Own behavior on the part of User:Fowler&fowler. Fowler&fowler has been actively editing the page since September 2013, and the page has been tagged as under construction for over a month. While he has certainly added a lot of referenced content to the article, in the course of his edits, Fowler&fowler has removed nearly all content, including references, added by other editors.dif This removal includes the removal of all criticism of Naipaul. Fowler&fowler has been dismissive of concerns raised on the talk page (dif1dif2), and he has recently insisted that he have sole editing control of the page for a month.dif, and that discussion and debate be put off until he is finished.dif.

While Fowler&fowler has preemptively declared this a 'frivolous, indeed tendentious and disruptive, conflict resolution'dif, from my perspective, the development of the V. S. Naipaul article is being stunted by Fowler&fowler's actively discouraging other editors. I understand that placing an article under construction gives an editor some leway to make major changes, but in this instance, I believe Fowler&fowler has overstepped the purview of construction.Dialectric (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's reply: Since it began life in 2001 until early September 2013, the V. S. Naipaul page had remained one of the shabbiest biographies of any literature Nobel laureate on Wikipedia. On 13 September 2014, just before I began to expand it, with a view to ultimately making it a Featured Article, it had two sections and 1,000 words. The first section had gossip as is painfully obvious here and the second section, if you scroll down further, was nothing but a copy and paste from nobelprize.org, with one or two token sentences of criticism. I made a post on the talk page and proceeded to expand the article, explaining in my edit summary that I was removing some material temporarily, but that all that was relevant would be replaced in the expanded article including distilled paraphrases of the copy-and-paste quotes. In mid-October I had a family emergency—two members of my family, in quick succession, came down with serious long-term illnesses, one terminal. By early November it became obvious to me that it was becoming difficult to both attend to Wikipedia and the Real Life stresses caused by the illnesses, not to mention my other real life commmittments. I made put a Wikibreak message on my user page and my talk page. At that point the article had reached this state (there was an underconstruction tag in place, and it had been expanded to almost 2,000 words of plain text). In mid-December, I extended the Wikibreak message until mid-February. On 20 February 2014, just as I was preparing to return, an editor, user:Chisme, who had not made a single edit to the Naipaul page reverted all my edits and restored the poorly written version of 13 September 2013. Soon user:Dialectric, who himself had not made any edits to the Naipaul page in four years (and three trivial edits before), joined user:Chisme. For the rest of the story, you can read the sections:

• Talk:V._S._Naipaul#Back_now
• Talk:V._S._Naipaul#Cooling_it and
• Talk:V._S._Naipaul#A_frivolous.2C_tendentious.2C_and_now_disruptive_interruption

I frankly don't know what to say. As my user page, user:Fowler&fowler shows, I have been developing content for a long time, including FA India, the oldest country FA on Wikipedia, where I have made over 1,000 edits, and collaborated with dozens, if not hundreds, of people (my 2,845 edits on Talk:India are a testament to that! :) ). No one has ever made these allegations before, certainly not dragged me to ANI. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"Since it began life in 2001 until early September 2013, the V. S. Naipaul page had remained one of the shabbiest biographies of any literature Nobel laureate on Wikipedia." That is a POV matter of opinion. The people who made the 1500+ edits to V.S. Naipaul between its inception in 2001 and 14 September 2013 when Fowler erased the work of all editors before him would disagree. Fowler keeps claiming that my objections to his re-write have no merit because I didn't edit the article before him -- that is clear evidence of a Wikipedia:Ownership of articles violation. I have never seen an editor try to reserve an article for more than a week, much less several months. He is abusing the Major Restructuring tag. And I have never seen editor so vehemently object to any change whatsoever because he believes an article belongs to him. Chisme (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:DRN be a better place to put this? Epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I considered that, but the WP:Own issue I pointed out seems to me to be preventing a resolution of content issues on the article talk page, so from my perspective the issue is more one of conduct than content, and my understanding of WP:DRN is that it is for disputes where content is the sole/primary issue. Dialectric (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I see no problem with the current route the article is taking. If Dialectric or any other editor wants to add something more to it, they may suggest it on the talk page to avoid edit conflicts. Wikipedia has no deadlines and even better option would be if they actually turn to the article a bit later on and then probably they might not even need to make any suggestions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Who adds those galleries of images? I saw such galleries were added into Subhas Chandra Bose article too. Tito☸Dutta 10:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

F&f adds them. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think all of those should be removed. What do you think? Tito☸Dutta 11:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Its different. I kinda like it. But i guess sometimes it might not look good. For example, with my screen size 4 images (as in VSN) fit very well in a single horz line. But 2 images (as in SCB) create a lot of empty space. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(To TitoDutta: It might be better to carry on this discussion on the Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose page.) I have followed the advice I was given during the FAC review of my FA Political_history_of_Mysore_and_Coorg_(1565–1760)#Subahdars_of_Sira.2C_1689.E2.80.931760 (see maps there). I have been away, so I hadn't noticed earlier that someone added half a dozen outsized images of the memorial in Manipur to the Bose page. I have now removed all except one, which I have moved to the "Death" section. The rest of the Bose article has mostly 4 images in each gallery, except two sections. I was trying to get some more images for those sections when I had to go away. I am back now. If I don't find more images, I'll change them to the regular WP format. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

PS (To TitoDutta) All galleries in Bose now in 4 picture format. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• But why do we need such distracting galleries? 5 galleries in an article, adding nothing and changing the look of the entire article. I'll ask Sitush Ji, whom I trust very much. Then if needed I'll open a discussion thread at SCB talk. --Tito☸Dutta 05:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Discovery of Downs Syndome cause reattributed by 'edit-a-thon'

Involved Editors: User:Rosieredfield and User:ChristophThomas

Involved Events: Wikipedia "Edit-a-thon"

Involved Pages: Jérôme_Lejeune and Marthe_Gautier

I would like to bring to your attention the page of Jérôme_Lejeune, a french scientist who discovered that an extra chromosome on the 21st pair caused downs syndrome. Very recently a group of people linked to the Wikipedia "edit-a-thon" have gone and edited this article and added links to interviews with a Marthe_Gautier who claims she discovered this. It's very troubling that an edit-a-thon is editing wikipedia in such a way.

I note that the only evidence this was discovered by either of them is;

J. Lejeune, M. Gautier et R. Turpin « Les chromosomes humains en culture de tissus » C. R. Acad. Sciences 26 janvier 1959.

In which J. Lejeune is named as the discoverer. M Gautier has just recently come out in interviews claiming that she made the discovery, however this is unverifiable and only happened after his death. Wikipedia's policy of No Original Research should come into play here and allow the page Marthe_Gautier to be deleted or stubbed pending a re-write, and for Jérôme_Lejeune to stay in its current form, as it is rolled back to 2013 Nov 18, which is before the edit-a-thon was created.

I note that the page for Marthe_Gautier is poorly written and reeks of argument. I am worried about an incoming edit war from the people from the "Edit-a-thon"

I think someone needs to monitor these pages for misleading edits and have a talk with named editors. Also, 'edit-a-thon's' for a particular cause, for any reason, are not constructive. Especially if a cause is political in nature, i.e., women in STEM fields.

Best Regards, Luke Martinez L32007 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Marthe Gautier article - it should probably be moved to AfC until it is ready for primetime. However a dispute over credit for discovery could very well be notable - keeping in mind we need to correct the WP:NPOV issues in the article. Some of the sources compel me to think this article should be on wikipedia in some form. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"Women in STEM fields" is a political cause now? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit-a-thon is political in nature? They wouldn't be doing vandalising pages to promote falsehoods if they weren't feminists, what's the problem with calling it as i see it? L32007 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've contested your proposed deletion on principle. You put a prod tag with the summary, "Added deletion request. Do not remove. Discuss on talk page." Proposed deletions must be uncontroversial, and if anyone objects at all to the page deletion then the prod is invalid. Ironically, your proposed deletion was self-defeating because you were effectively admitting that it was controversial by demanding that nobody remove the tag (which you cannot do) and asking people to discuss the deletion on the article talk page (which, again, demonstrates the controversy of the deletion). If you want a deletion discussion for that article (which I don't object to) you must take it to articles for deletion. -- Atama頭 18:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Note taken, Thanks for that, I'll look to that. The page is poorly written and has redundent titling. Also Something needs to be done about the content, if she isn't telling the truth, and the only evidence we have is her interviews, she's not notible for wikipedia. L32007 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@L32007 : "In which J. Lejeune is named as the discoverer." there is no such claim in the sources you cite - if you would have spend the time reading the source you would know that. And no - I am not anywhere near any group - if you would have had a look at my contributions you would know that too. The controversy is out in the open for a while now (since 2009) and has been in each reputable French newspaper (Le Monde, Liberation, La Croix) Of course you would have known this is if ... christophe (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Just clarifying that I don't disagree with Atama at all. I only suggested move to AfC because the article is so clearly under construction currently. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The source i cite is the publication by J. Lejeune OF his discovery, now that he is deceased M. G. is coming out to newspapers and going for interviews -- that can't be a reliable source, just because it was said in a newspaper by the person who claims credit now, 50 years after the discovery does not make it true. As for your claim that you are not in such group, please see the | relevant section of the groups page. L32007 (talk)

oh sorry Lejeune's own publication ... in that case! I was referring to the original publication of the discovery. christophe (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like this is a content dispute, not vandalism or bad faith edits and so, as Atama says, this conversation should be moved to the article talk page or, if that discussion isn't constructive, move to the dispute resolution process. It doesn't sound like there is any call here for admin action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I have participated in six or seven Edit-a-thons, and they are simply gatherings where experienced editors and newer editors meet to discuss editing Wikipedia, and then do some editing. These events help in recruiting and training productive new editors. If 20 or 30 people are sitting around tables editing on laptops, it should not be surprising that some of the contributions will be excellent, and some will be . . . not so good. Don't blame the Edit-a-thon concept for some poor edits, as Randy in Boise and his legions of POV pushing clones are perfectly capable of making poor edits while all alone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

An article in the 14 February 2014 issue of Science suggests there may be something to Marthe Gautier's claims. But we can't put a conclusion about this in Wikipedia's voice until reliable sources make a finding, assuming that they ever do so. Getting witnesses to recall the details of what happened in a lab 50 years ago may be tricky. Assuming this gets widely covered, the dispute itself may be notable. You may be not be able to read the full Science article due to the paywall. Another version of the story is on a news site operated by Science, "After More Than 50 Years, a Dispute Over Down Syndrome Discovery". EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment: Why is the Edit-a-thon being blamed for this? If anything, it's the editors themselves, not the event, logically. Epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the women-in-wikipedia editathon played a major role in these edits, since most of the edits were made by me well before the editathon. I did put a link to the Marthe Gautier page in one of the lists of pages that could be edited by participants in the editathon, but I don't think anyone followed up on this. I agree that the primary dispute is about content. Rosieredfield (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Levotb and slow-moving POV-pushing

Yesterday, I was doing some anti-vandalism patrolling on STiki, and I ran into the article for Al Melvin (politician), which was undergoing some vandalism at the time. It eventually was sorted out, but then I ran into Levotb (talk · contribs) and this edit. Again, it's nothing too extreme, but when I went back into their edit history, although they aren't as bad as some others, they have deliberately removed or mis-characterized information on the pages in order to fit their viewpoint. Edits such as this one (where they replaced "African American" with "black"), and this edit (where they replaced "Undocumented immigrants" with "Illegal aliens"), and this edit (where they removed all mentions of a lack of minorities in the film) show that something is up, and I was wondering if anyone thinks that they should be blocked for an obvious breach of policy. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Recommend you take this to WP:NPOVN. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, as that page appears to be article issues, whereas this is for a specific user. Also, since this is vandalism in some ways, I wanted to make a note of it here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ktr - I'd suggest engaging with the user on their talkpage about the issues you see, in pretty explicit detail. They're definitely acting from a particular POV, but they have few enough edits that they may not realize that's not appropriate on Wikipedia. I'd suggest giving them pointers to stuff like WP:NPOV, or even picking a particular edit of their's out and explaining the problems you see in it while making it clear that your objection is that it fails to conform to Wikipedia policy, and not a solely ideological one. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Thanks for the suggestion! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

President of Ukraine issue

This issue regards the article President of Ukraine. Mandz orp keeps adding "disputed" in the infobox for acting president Oleksandr Turchynov. They have done this so many times I would consider it edit warring. They have tried to make their point on the talk page but have no support from other users. In fact, many users have reverted, this including myself twice, and stated their opposition. I asked the user to gain a proper consensus to add "disputed" but they don't seem to care based on their most recent edit summary. Can an admin please remove the "disputed" from the infobox and temporarily protect the article, and explain to the user they must stop edit warring and discuss it until they have a consensus? Thank you. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I thank you for protecting the page, but can you please explain why you have not removed the "disputed" claim from the infobox while there clearly is no consensus for that? Fry1989 ^eh? 21:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A helpful label for affixing to any articles you find locked at the Wrong Version. But you can't affix anything because it's locked.

I protected the "wrong version", obviously. I was acting to put a stop to a budding edit war without deciding that. Discussion among editors should continue and people should discuss what will happen when protection comes off. Three hours isn't very long. I'm available to look on or stay out, as people prefer.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

And I give any uninvolved admin permission to change that as Fry1989 discussed, if they think it best, or if the dispute is resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe you fully understand the problem. There is no consensus to add "disputed" to the infobox, not a single user supports this move by Mandz orp, but clearly this user has no intention of stopping adding "disputed" unless an admin is involved. With a complete lack of support, Mandz orp's insistence is already edit warring and vandalism, they have added "disputed" (or reverted back to Yanukovich as legitimate) to the article 8 times in the last 3 days against the will of many different users. That's why I brought this to the noticeboard in the first place. As I said on the discussion page, the issue isn't whether this user is right or wrong, it's that they have zero support. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you have a valid point, in fact I agree (Though not on vandalism) , but that was what was in existence when I protected and after this discussion, I don't want to edit through my own protection to change it. Anyone else want to weigh in?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed my protection. Who's next?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to explain, as an admin, why I think what Wehwalt did was correct (and why it's necessary for administrators to protect the "wrong" version when protecting a page). An administrator should not use their tools at any article where they are involved. Being involved means taking a side in a dispute or trying to expand or "fix" an article. If an administrator changes an article, and then protects it, they are basically misusing their tools by forcing their preferred change to the article to be in place when a non-administrator can't undo it. I think it should be obvious as to why that would be a bad thing. So an administrator who protects a page will leave it in the state it was in, making no judgment as to the suitability of the content, but simply preventing others from changing it (usually to stop an edit war). The only exception is in cases where the content of the article must be changed immediately, in the case of vandalism, violations of our WP:BLP policy, or some other problem that urgently needs to be fixed. Since this is not one of those cases, Wehwalt was following proper procedure by protecting the "wrong" version until the current dispute is sorted out on the discussion page. -- Atama頭 22:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I often take a different tack, reverting back to whatever version existed before the edit war began (whether I agree with it or not), then protecting. Kind of "forcing" WP:BRD. I've found that this is slightly less likely to reward an edit warrior who's edit warring against consensus, although there are no guarantees. If someone is edit warring against a clear consensus on the talk page, I'll warn them and then block them if they continue, instead of protecting the page. But in this case, I'm not actually seeing any consensus one way or the other, it seems to be one against one. I'm concerned that the person being reported is pretty clearly an SPA, but on the other hand, this is a pretty harmless thing to have in the article until an actual consensus emerges. So, more eyeballs and more discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, I can see that. But that pre-supposes that protection was the right course of action. I'm not involved in that particular issue but have seen this scenario and this use of protection several times. Surely, if the problem is one disruptive/POV editor trying to override consensus of several other editors and force through change and if the neutral application of protection results in the version preferred by that one disruptive editor, then surely protection is not the right administrative action. Other measures eg blocking the disruptive editor shoukd be taken. DeCausa (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

My thought was that it was pretty much what Floq said, the usual suspects in a slow-burning edit war, and that such is a time to disregard the behavior because it's senseless to spend the time deciding who is in the right when the important thing is that it be worked out, perhaps with Wikiprojects notified to provide more eyes. That was my focus.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I have no place in such a discussion about methods, but I do thank everyone for their interest and most of all in removing "disputed" as it is not supported by a consensus. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

If full protection is the answer, protecting the lastest wrong version is the best path per Wehwalt / Atama. However, it this case [145], it was clearly one editor 3rr-"extended" (3 reverts ~26 hours -- close enough for Wikipedia work). A block at the time of protection wouldn't have been appropriate due to no 3rr warning (since taken care of by Beyond My Ken, but posting the warning would have been the next step. NE Ent 11:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Noor Pur Baghan

• Noor Pur Baghan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sajjad Altaf (talk · contribs)

Long term ownership and edit warring over the article, which Sajjad Altaf created and built largely from original research. The problem appears to have originated with the editor, and article, receiving mention in the New York Times. Rather than acknowledge the COI issues, there are accusations of bad faith directed at user Sitush. Without having observed the longer exchange between them, the appearance is that Sajjad may be inclined to this kind of editing, and believes other editors are trying to sabotage him or the project. JNW (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there is an edit warring on my behalf as i do not think i broke any 3RR rule here, if any one of you administrators observe what happened today was that i opposed an article from being deleted which was proposed for deletion by Sitush. As soon as i opposed that proposal, Sitush started reverting all of my edits made recently on three pages Noor Pur Baghan, Maula Jatt and Dulla Bhatti, to me this was an act of vengeance not of a professional editor. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sajjad, edit warring is not synonymous with WP:3RR. I make many edits to many articles and you'll note that I've edited Noor Pur Baghan before today and I completely revamped Dulla Bhatti recently. I doubt anyone would dispute that the latter article is far, far better than it was before my revamp; some might quibble about the state of the former article but, hey, you cannot just write anything on Wikipedia, even if it is with the charitable intention of promoting a nondescript village somewhere (as you said on the article talk page).

Yes, I was checking your contributions but I was doing so because I vaguely recalled seeing your name before & in relation to some problematic stuff (turned out to be because of the NPB article). There is nothing wrong with checking things out, especially if there have been causes for concern, and especially given that all these items have been watchlisted and, if you examine my edits closely, you'll see that I regularly maintain items on my list even though sometimes it takes me a few days to get to them. Hey, maybe the dedicated Sitush ANI will get its first report soon.- Sitush (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As long as we're here, I also have a question re: this edit [146]. Do we include honorifics in article titles, based on the insistence of an article's creator? Here, too, I'm wondering about ownership and original research in a regrettably poorly sourced article. JNW (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

We should not. -- SMS ^Talk 23:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Professor Iqbal Azeem is known as Professor Iqbal Azeem, i have never heard of referring to him as Iqbal Azeem, it's not an honorific anymore, it is part of the name as per WP:COMMONNAME. Common name is what a person referred to as most. It's like Alexander The Great, you will have to remove "The Great" from his name because it is an honorific but as per WP:COMMONNAME, you won't remove because it has become part of his name. Same way Professor has become part of his name. Iqbal Azeem could be anybody. Iqbal Azeem does not identify the person known as Professor Iqbal Azeem. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Sitush, problematic stuff you are referring to is being mentioned in NYTimes. I know it's hard to digest. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem here isn't Sitush, it's the adherence to unsourced content and original research. It's not how Wikipedia works. JNW (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I totally understand that but i still feel i am being singled out and targeted by Sitush, my vote to keep Phaphra was in good faith and it was not because Sitush proposed it for deletion. I honestly did not know that there are some well known authors whose work is not being accepted by Wikipedia. All i am saying is that the flurry of edits that he did reverting my edits after that was in response to that. It should not have been that way. He should not have made a personal vendetta. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if you're correct--and I don't think that you are--the situation would be defused immediately if you followed policy and removed the unsourced content you've added to articles. There are no editors forcing you to ignore Wikipedia guidelines, so it sounds as if you're acting against your own best interests out of stubbornness. JNW (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hosting a personal attack by another editor on a Talk page.

• Not resolved: see comments dated 28 February 2014 at end of this section. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. For several weeks now, I have been followed and harassed by an IP hopper making a huge range of unsubstantiated claims about my editing. This IP hopper has now posted a personal attack about me on the Talk page of User talk:Timelezz. This personal attack includes naming me in the thread heading. I have twice asked User talk:Timelezz over the last few days to delete this entire personal attack thread, but they have refused. I would like to know if I, or another editor, can delete this thread from User talk:Timelezz. Thank you for considering this request.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that Timelezz requested advice at the help desk on this issue. I don't see any action being taken on it. Personally if it were about me, i would prefer to make a single response to such comments and then leave them there. If they are indeed completely unfounded, anyone who looks will be able to see this and the poster will only harm his or her rep, such as it may be. However, you are not required to do that. Perhaps if the thread was edited to make the heading more neutral, and remove the provocative language? DES ^(talk) 01:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've advised Timelezz and others who have received similar messages to remove the personal attacks, or to explain why they feel it is appropriate to allow their talkpages to by used by a blocked user to make repeated attacks on other editors. By the way, I've blocked the latest IP sock, who has fixated on DrChrissy as an opponent, and who is treating animal rights topics and Wikipedia in general as battlegrounds. A previous episode in January led to extensive rangeblocks that took out a lot of Western Australian IPs, and I have yet to discern an agenda other than axe-grinding. I think at least six IPs and an /18 range have been blocked in this month's episode. As Drmies and others noted in January, this is well past disruptive. I removed the attack on Timelezz's page on grounds of PA, DENY, etc., but Timelezz restored it and admonished me that he could manage his own page himself, thank you, so I let it stand rather than indulge in a pointless dispute. I will note that, while editors are given more latitude over their talkpages, it's not infinite, and it's still Wikipedia's talkpage in the end. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

And now I've blocked another IP manifestation at CYl7EPTEMA777's talkpage,who has his own interpretation of DES's remark [147]. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - your continued attention to this is very much appreciated.__DrChrissy (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• An IP hopper has been abusing an editor for months—see here and here and here and here and here. There have been several other reports at places like WP:RSN and WP:COIN where the IP has used inflammatory headings and extravagant claims to attack editors. Timelezz apparently thinks that their talk page is available as a safe haven for the IP, however Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech or liberty, and talk pages are not available to host attacks. If the IP wants to accuse an editor of something, they need to use moderate language, neutral headings, and do it on a suitable noticeboard—not article or user talk pages. One unfortunate aspect of encouraging the IP by restoring their attacks is that it means the IP will never learn how to collaborate, and so may never make useful edits. If the IP received a consistent message, they might adapt. Would an uninvolved admin please explain this to Timelezz and ensure that a reasonable outcome occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

And now another WA IP here, now removed [148], Drmies and I are part of DrCrissy's "gang". This one blocked too. Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Acroterion, as a certified sock of me, and me being on Dr. Crissy's payroll, you are waaay too involved to be making such a block. Next time I'll take care of it. On a less serious note, I hate being given reasons to support registering as a requirement to edit. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Leaving DrChrissy out of it for the moment, you/we are a mighty funny-looking woman, though the Acroterion version has more hair. Acroterion (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

While the IP range is allocated to a company registered in Perth, Western Australia, it is likely that this is accurate, namely that the IP is in Sydney. However, that's not important—can we please focus attention on whether an editor has the right to restore an attack on their talk page. The IP is using User talk:Timelezz to post unfounded accusations. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the short answer to DrChrissy's question "I would like to know if I, or another editor, can delete this thread from User talk:Timelezz", yes ? DrChrissy could have deleted that comment per WP:TPO since it is a personal attack and they don't need anyone's permission. That is my understanding anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's what I think, but the problem is that the owner of the talk page reverted the removal of the attack (Please, don't touch MY Talk page), and left a rather strong message on the talk page of the offending editor (Moderating Talk pages). Further, by restoring an attack, Timelezz has endorsed the attack. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's very simple: the offending posting was made in evasion of a block, so it can be removed. If Timelezz wants it restored, he can only do so by personally endorsing everything said in it. But if he does so, he will be treated as responsible for every form of abuse in it – i.e. he will be treated as if he himself was attacking and harassing the complainant. In other words, if he restores it one more time, I will block him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with the resolution. As I've said before, I doubted whether this was to be considered a personal attack. I was against other users moderating my Talk page as long as I doubt it is a personal attack. I've said to respect moderator's decision. I notice that a moderator agreed that, other than requested, removal of the whole thread is unappropriate. The moderator removed some sections that s/he considered a personal attack. Of course I abide to that. I think this approach is very well in line with Wikipedia:USERTALKBLOG. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Moderator? Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Timelezz for the graceful response; I guess we can call this situation resolved then, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with FPaS. It'simportant to note that Timelezz has made it clear (to me at least) that Timelezz doesn't support the IP's attacks on DrChrissy. As for CYl7EPTEMA777, their English skills make them hard to interpret, so I've been giving them the benefit of the doubt. Acroterion (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Timelezz: Thanks, that's good, but please give the underlying issue some more consideration. If someone goes to your talk page and writes "User X is a liar", that is a personal attack. The norms used by the community are very easy to understand as they are all based on the need for collaboration. It's fine to use a noticeboard to say "User X has made many statements which they must have known are wrong [link to examples]", but what do you think would be the eventual outcome if it became acceptable for editors to write "X is a liar" (and other insults) on various talk pages? Johnuniq (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid I can not agree that this matter is resolved. Timeleez has now posted on a separate thread of his Talk page ("Notice") a thanks to the adminstrator who redacted parts of his talk page. In his thanks, Timeleez posted "And I applaud that you only removed the sections that were refering to words as 'lie', and did not remove a reference to "an original research case", which I agree, can not be considered as a personal attack." This is clearly an open support of the unfounded accusation of OR made by the IP hopper - and is in effect, posting such accusation, as indicated in the discussion above. If Timeleez wishes to bring a case of OR against me, then do that on the appropriate page with the appropriate evidence - which will not be found. If not, I would like this comment redacted. I wonder whether by drawing specific attention to this aspect of the IP's original attack, Timeleez is in further breach of policy and perhaps inviting more punitive action.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is where the wikilawyers have got you over a barrel. The comment from the abusive IP that is still visible says:

Hello, just let you know that there is an original research case of DrChrissy on the notice board.

That wording squeaks by the requirement to not attack another editor, and the fact that the original heading used by the IP (which was an extreme attack) has been redacted makes the above "OK" in the eyes of the average WP:DGAF onlooker. Some editors regard an attack as a string of four-letter words, but the IP uses none of them. To my mind, a string of expletives is easily shrugged off as any rational onlooker will disregard it as an emotional outburst. The IP's completely unfounded but repeated accusations of "lies" and "COI OWN" are much worse as they attack the character of another editor. It is disgraceful that it has taken so long for these obvious attacks to be removed, and it is absurd that Timelezz still does not get it.

What is more concerning is that Timelezz's last comment on their talk includes the opinion that "other users [should not be] moderating my Talk page" and "DrChrissy requested me coercively". The former shows a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia, and the latter is an unsubstantiated (and completely incorrect) personal attack. My guess was that FPaS was overlooking that because it is good that Timelezz has climbed down a fair way, and we are hoping that in time they will work out what collaboration involves. However, I am waiting for a response from @Timelezz: to judge whether pushing for further action would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I too was worried about the expression "DrChrissy requested me coercively" made by Timeleez. Timeleez has on many occasions stated that his native language is not English, so I was willing to accept this expression as being made in good faith. However, because of his continued attacks and support of IP harassment on his Talk page, I am now not so sure. It seems to be a highly loaded expression which suggests a high degree of understanding of the English language. Amongst all this, I have no idea why Timeleez has chosen this course of action against me - I think the only slightly adverserial contact we have had is on Marius (giraffe) where I inserted a without giving an explanation because it seemed obvious to me. For some reason, Timeleez took exception to this.__DrChrissy (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Johnuniq, DrChrissy did not just request me to remove the text, he added pressure to it saying "Could I suggest that for each minute you leave this thread on your talk page, you are tacitly supporting this personal attack. This will not be looked upon favourably should you or I raise a dispute." Implying consequences on inaction. Hence, I called this a coercive request. Neither have I climbed down anywhere. My position was clear from the beginning, and nothing has changed about that. Acroterion is completely correct to state that "Timelezz has made it clear (to me at least) that Timelezz doesn't support the IP's attacks on DrChrissy." Instead, it is DrChrissy who repeatedly, and still, is arguing that I am in support of the claims made by the IP hoppers. He says literally, "This is clearly an open support of the unfounded accusation". I consider this a distorted view of the events and an inability to see events in another way than black or white. He is free to be as much mistaken as he wishes to be. But please refrain from throwing words like "disgraceful" and "absurd" at me. Thank you. On that final note, I consider and will keep considering this topic as closed. Timelezz (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Timeleez, it would be incorrect for you to consider this matter closed. The IP's unfounded accusation against me of OR remains on your Talk page, and your comment supporting this accusation also remains on your Talk page. Please remove both these or provide information so that I can refute what is now YOUR accusation. If necessary, I will open a separate AnI regarding this matter. This is not "coercion" or a threat - simply a statement of my possible future actions.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sudhan

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 couple of editors ""sitush"" and "Smsarmad" have consistently deleted everything on the above referenced article due their personal prejudices, this article has been edited by numerous editors over the years and now only has a few lines due to these editors behavior. I request that they be banned from editing Trueblood (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sudhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Currently, the most recent edit is by Trueblood786 (diff) and that appears to add a bunch of text sprinkled with "citation needed". There is no recent discussion on the talk page, but there is a claim from August 2012 that general sanctions apply to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Possible legal threat?

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked indef

CeredigionLawCentre (talk · contribs) has made this diff to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. I can't tell if that is just a statement made by some sock or user involved in the ongoing Daft/AA block/unblock saga that seems to be consuming that page at the moment - of which I am largely ignorant - or whether it is an actual legal threat or some intention. As a member of the project, despite being very much ignorant of the Daft/AA matters, I didn't feel it appropriate to comment. Plus it's quite a light legal threat if it even is one. Thoughts? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat. It was a one-time post (probably by a sockpuppet, though without knowing who it's a sock of there's no action to take in that regard). It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, it didn't reference what prompted the post, and didn't state any particular action that would be taken. It appears to be a random post, perhaps an odd trolling attempt. I also looked up "Ceredigion Law Centre" and while Ceredigion is a real place, I could find no evidence that the "Ceredigion Law Centre" is anything but fictional, so there's no need to block per WP:ORGNAME. My advice: ignore the post, and don't give anymore undue attention. -- Atama頭 17:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't seen this before I read the UAA report. Notwithstanding those issues, I blocked indef anyway, as between the name and the insinuations I don't think we need this person. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to both. I realise it was a bit of a wishy-washy "threat" likely connected to a sock of Daft or someone else who is involved in this apparent saga at WT:CRIC of which I have been largely ignorant. Thanks! --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't object to blocking, I don't see that the person was here for a constructive purpose. If nothing else, I'm sure they're a sock of someone. -- Atama頭 18:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruption of talk page by DHeyward

It is proving impossible to achieve any progress on the talk page Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming becauuse any discussion is continually diverted and hijacked. There are others besides DHeyward (talk · contribs) doing this but they are they one who I have explicitly warned there and have practically immediately started up again. This is a page under the climate change WP:AE sanctions.

At [149] you can see how one of them TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) diverts the discussion then I warn DHeyward. However in [150] they are off supporting TheRedPenOfDoom in diverting the discussion again. This topic was raised before at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming#Put in something about the notability of the topic but that was hijacked and turned into Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming#Rename and refocus to List of scientists that the media have used to inappropriately "balance" discussions of climate change by TheRedPenOfDoom and Ronz (talk · contribs). Dmcq (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

One cannot not consider how BLP will impact any future criteria. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried an RFC or dispute resolution? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Debating the same things endlessly on that Talk page is tedious, I know. I've been watching it for years and sometimes I have to take it off my watchlist just so I can see the wood for the trees. People feel very strongly about the issues it raises and some become disruptive to a greater or lesser degree. I don't personally think DHeyward and TRPoD are at AN/I level yet though. I would personally recommend taking a deep breath and getting back to what you were trying to do. Ignoring irrelevant posts and repeating relevant points is somewhat helpful. Remember, patience is a virtue! --Merlinme (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Dmcq needs to take some time from the article given his repeated focus on editors and overreaction when discussions naturally stray from their initial topics. See [151] [152] [153] for some context. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't find where I was disruptive. It's pretty clear that there is no consensus on who belongs on that list. It's kind of difficult to discuss how the list is notable without first determining who is on it. Cart before the horse, and all that. --DHeyward (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well- I can understand the desire to keep "redesigning page completely" discussion separate from discussion of a specific proposal. In the absence of consensus for "redesigning page completely" it's understandable that an editor would like to to focus on areas where it might be possible to get consensus to make incremental improvements. But I still don't think AN/I is the way to go because threads keep getting sidetracked. Threads getting sidetracked is pretty normal on that page, to be honest. --Merlinme (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• DHeyward isn't being disruptive from what I can see. I don't know what the criteria is for inclusion on that list but unless said person states where they stand on the topic, it should never be our mission to use references to come to our own conclusions, regardless of how reasonable they may seem.--MONGO 20:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion topic was including notability in the lead. The criteria are listed at the top of the talk page. Changing the criteria is something separate and there was a section there for them to take their BLP concerns. The BLP concerns have nothing to do with the notability of the list. You have been sidetracked into considering those concerns. That is what they do all the time, they have ignored the course they shoudl take and just go in for disruption of progress on the list because they want it deleted but can't get that past AfD and if you look at any of the previous discussions since the last AfD the same thing happens. It is Gish Gallop and others have noted the disruption. Dmcq (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That is a rather gross mischaracterization of my edits to the talk page. I also take issue with your characterization of motive and comparison to "Gish Gallop" as well as a characterization of "they." Not sure who "they" are. If you like analogies - I'd point out that "list criteria" is the Titanic. "BLP Policy" is the iceberg. "Notability in the lead" is the deck chairs. I'd argue that the attempts to rearrange/count/order/categorize the deck chairs while ignoring such obvious problems is more disruptive than addressing the immediate catastrophe. It's a time waster. --DHeyward (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You should deal with your concerns in the separate section set up for you to discuss them. You are not doing that. You are disrupting an unrelated discussion. If you believe you can get agreement to what you want why bother with a discussion about the lead? Your change would require a change in the lead if agreed but it has not been agreed yet and you're not going to get agreement for the deletion of most or all the names on BLP grounds by sticking your concerns into a discussion about the notability requirements in the lead. I'm repeating myself yet again saying that to you as you simply ignore that and continue on and on like this. That is why I have raised this AN/I request. If you wish to not waste time then get your changes agreed rather than waste your time in something you think is a waste of time. Dmcq (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think its only in your mind that a discussion of list criteria for a controversial subject about living people could somehow be "not related" to BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It was a discussion about sources for notability of the list topic not the contents. Criteria for individual entries is separate and you could discuss those separately. There was no excuse for you to suddenly hijack such a discussion with your proposal 'Rename and refocus to List of scientists that the media have used to inappropriately "balance" discussions of climate change' and insist on it taking over rather than being split to a separate discussion. Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not "hijack" the discussion. The subject was "Put in something about the notability of the topic". How do you put in something about the notability of the topic? - by showing what reliable sources say about the topic - which is what I did by providing a list of sources. Then by looking at what those sources were saying about the topic, it became clear that an alternate title would help align the title> with notability> with sources> and thence the criteria for inclusion. All "on topic" for moving the article forward. That someone else you , actually) decided to promote it to a section header and that multiple editors considered the suggestions worthy of continued discussion is certainly not me "hijacking" any conversation in a way that is detrimental to the article and its contents actually meeting our policies.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• 'It is proving impossible to achieve any progress on the talk page <-- There has been almost no progress in that article for at least one and a half years. Second Quantization (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly true and I would like to see some discretionary sanctions by uninvolved administrators applied. Dmcq (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparent anti-female bigotry

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

---

Please see the following comment from Giano, which is directed at administrator GorillaWarfare: "Well I am still rather mystified as to why GorillaWarfare permitted her "friend" to remove my talk page access. I was merely reinstating what she had removed by conflicting; in fact, I am puzzled as to why her friend was there at all, does he always walk two paces behind her? Is she some poor, feeble little woman incapable of acting alone? But then of course she needed a third man to help her place the block, so perhaps she is. Then again, was it a longed for arbcom revenge and they were all fighting amongst themselves to place it? Possibly even, Gorilla's not very good at placing blocks on her own and needs a cluster supporters to assist her in difficult tasks. Whatever, I'm reminded of a beloved aunt, who when arranging flowers, had a butler to hold the vase, a gardener to select and pass her the flowers, a maid to cut the stems, and three friends to admire her handiwork and artistry." (diff)

I realize that Giano is, perhaps somewhat rightfully, unhappy about the events that have transpired during the past few weeks, but these comments have crossed a line. Northern Antarctica (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Giano's personal attacks go far beyond that with [154] that edit "an extremely stupid woman and a little fish in a little pond" etc, along with those listed below, however as these attacks were done in full view of the Arbs, during an Arb proceeding, it may be best to let them handle it if they see fit. On the other hand, since the attacks were directed to the Arbs, perhaps the community should be the impartial judge in this case. [155] [156] [157] [158] [159][160][161][162] Gaijin42 (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Can i just advise that when you are planning a topic here with your friends; it's best for them not to respond with 8 diffs within 7 minutes of the original post. People might just find that a little suspicious. Giano (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't planned out. I have never interacted with Northern Antarctica in any fashion, on any page, article or discussion. I had put together the list of diffs previously during a discussion with one of the Arbs commenting that I was surprised your behavior hadn't resulted in a block. Though I certainly do not claim any credit for your block, since it was obviously the right thing to do and was approaching inevitability, you were blocked shortly thereafter by GW. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42 is correct (and also a lot nicer than I was going to be). Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There have been many heated discussions. It would have been better to let this remain on the user talk pages and die a natural death than for an uninvolved third party to bring it here.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Baloney. Some of us are tired of watching as Giano lashes out in all direction. He's made a mockery of civility and it will be an utter farce if he gets away with such a blatantly hateful remark as this one. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I rather think you'll find that it's the Arbcom who have made a mockery of civility recently. Giano (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you don't even seem to know what civility is. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already suggested to Giano's aunt, who sits high in the counsel of the Wikipedia elite, to give him some words of advice on behaviour similar to this. I hope she will do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone explain what this neverending cycle of infantile whining and facile namecalling has to do with producing an online encyclopaedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Bigotry is a big accusation. Until we hear from both parties we should not jump to conclusions about something both parties might consider to be normal badinage between them. Leaky Caldron 21:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't look like GorillaWarfare saw it that way [163]. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, her twitter says much the same thing. "As much as I hate to say it, things like this make me miss the days where no one in my online communities knew I was a woman." & "Getting reeeal sick of some of the assumptions that are made about me, and those who interact with me, made based on my gender." Gaijin42 (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide a link or would that not be possible? (I'm not familiar with how Twitter works.) Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

NOT SURE THAT'S WISE. She might not appreciate a bunch of new followers from here. Leaky Caldron 21:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure if it would be a good idea. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I Agree. I won't be posting the link (although its trivial to find, she left plenty of breadcrumbs). If someone doubts the veracity of my quotes, I can provide more personalized linkage or screenshots or something. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because I know being called "an extremely stupid woman and a little fish in a little pond" is just normal, friendly conversation between two editors on WP.

That said, unlike, say, having a sock account, it seems like admins are very reluctant to impose blocks for incivility despite how it poisons the atmosphere around here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I was considering posing a thing to the community for consideration to the effect of: "In the case of incivility/personal attacks against an experienced editor (where experienced means that they know enough to know where AN/ANI is and what the appropriate steps for reporting are), AN/ANI threads are not to be made by anyone other than the target of the incivility/personal attacks without their explicit blessing." GW is an adult and knows where ANI is; why are we making the choice of whether to start an ANI thread about this or not for her? This kind of white-knighting (so to speak) can do more harm than good at times. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought, but maybe GW didn't post here because she's tired of dealing with Giano. Dealing with a bully can be emotionally draining. Should we just ignore the bullying because it wasn't the victim who pointed it out? Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Contrariwise, should we keep dragging out and calling attention to an issue that she doesn't want to hear about anymore? The best person to answer that is her; perhaps we should've asked her before doing so. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You may have a point there. Either way, there is still an problem with Giano's conduct (and it wasn't just one post), which is what caused her discomfort in the first place. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Recent events have been tumultuous, with absurd accusations from an admin, an arbcom case, motions, and attacks—and those were the good things. The matter has finally ground almost to an end, and now is not the time to push the train downhill again. Giano's intemperate outburst was highly inappropriate, but so were each of a dozen steps in the preceding chain. Johnuniq (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• I get that he was upset, but how many other Wikipedians would make such a sexist remark under any circumstance? Northern Antarctica (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

...is that a trick question? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No. I've seen other veteran Wikipedians lose their cool and make unpleasant remarks, but I don't know that any of them ever emphasized the gender of the person they were displeased with in a scathing commentary. Giano used the term 'woman' in what seems to be a pejorative way. That's not ever acceptable. Northern Antarctica (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• The instructions at the top of this page say "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.". I see no evidence that Northern Antartica has attempted to do so. Eric Corbett 22:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Two questions re logic: Q1) If ANI threads re allowed to be opened by uninvolved third parties, what does that spell for future? (What if Northern Anarctica or some other user got an itch to play "civility cop" during the entire year 2014, there would be no shortage of uncivil remarks at their disposal. So we might have 2, 3, 4, or even 20 or more ANI threads opened per day by the third part executing their little hobby. That means perhaps 365 x 20 = 7300 new ANI threads in a calendar year, all from an uninvolved third party. This is the kind of chaos element to ANI that makes ANI the cesspool it is.) Q2) @Northern Antarctica, you included accusation in the thread name of "anti-female bigotry". Although in RL that is a serious offense, and I think so too, I'm curious ... on what *WP* basis do you base an ANI? (For example, in my Wiki-history I opened an ANI resentful of the fact that a user fabricated that I had called editors Dennis Brown and Elen of Roads "asshats" and "idiots", when I had never used those name-calls against anyone, ever, let alone those two users. When I complained about the fabrication, the false accusation against my character, I was told [by an admin] that Wikipedia had no classification for such a thing other than [general] incivility. I was told to see the fabrication as nothing more than incivility. Therefore, your claim of bigotry, unless you can provide a WP-basis for more, is nothing more than a form of incivility and s/b treated that way. Therefore you can drop the "big serious-sounding charge" from the thread title, since it isn't recognized in any WP policy -- only in an essay.) Your charge of bigotry has no significance in WP unless you can show that it does outside of being generally uncivil. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your bogus wiki-lawyering. Anti-female bigotry is just as wrong here as it is anywhere else. Regarding your first question, let me know when you see me opening 20 ANI threads per day. Northern Antarctica (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a non-reply, Northern. The issue of third-party-initiated ANIs makes no sense, and I just provided argument why they shouldn't be permitted. And I'm not disagreeing with you bigotry is wrong wherever it is found, but so is a false fabrication that goes against someone's character, and I was told by admin the fabrication isn't covered by policy outside "general incivility". Ditto for bigotry, unless you can show otherwise, so your thread title has no significance within WP unless you can provide some, which you haven't. How about deal with the good-faith logical questions Antartica, instead of your uncivil mischaracterization because it doesn't please your agenda to be free to file uninvolved third-party ANIs? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider it to be a fabrication. It is quite troubling that Giano would belittle GorillaWarfare while emphasizing that she is a woman. I'm not going to go digging for policies in order to demonstrate why something is wrong when it is obviously wrong. As for your argument about why third-party ANIs (and I'm not the first person to ever do it) should not be permitted, please provide hard evidence that your numbers are an actual reflection of what is going on. Northern Antarctica (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You miss the points, Northern. There is no WP basis for your "bigotry" claim other than "general incivility". And you totally misunderstood about "fabrication" -- that applied to me, not to Gorilla. (Hello! Read much?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

On the other point, I argued that uninvolved third-party ANIs should not be permitted, period. Because that is chaos. The fact that others might do it, doesn't change that it is still chaos and makes no sense to allow. (How about reading what I write rather than misconstrue meaning so frequently?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I see where I misunderstood about the fabrication part. My mistake. At any rate, I do not think it is necessary to have a policy that specifically spells out that anti-female bigotry is a problem and I will not be changing my opinion. Also, I disagree with your position on uninvolved third-party ANIs. In my view, it is more chaotic to insist that only the target of a vitriolic attack can report it. If you saw someone break into your neighbor's house and tried to report it, would the police ignore you simply because it wasn't your house? Northern Antarctica (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

My point is that you have no WP policy to stand on outside of "(general) incivility". The amount of incivility on WP is almost unimaginable ... To take a position that uninvolved third parties can file ANI threads, leads to a huge loss of community time/attention. For example you recently filed an uninvolved third-party ANI against *me*, and it went nowhere. It is a form of disruption, Antartica, you have a habit of doing this and you are the disruptor. Third-party ANI threads based on civility are nothing like a house burglary or forced entry that is potentially life-endangering, so that analogy doesn't compute. (Another broken part of your house break-in analogy is that you are presuming the homeowner wasn't home to call the cops? Well Gorilla "was home". Or the homeowner was home and you called the cops during the break-in because the homeowner wasn't able? Again, Gorilla "was able".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

All analogies will break down eventually. At this point, we are just talking past each other. I get it. You dislike me. That's been obvious to me for a while now. At this point, I don't anticipate anything productive coming out of further discussion with you. Therefore, this is my last remark to you in this thread: I do not care at all whether or not WP policy specifically states anything about anti-female bigotry. It should not have to. Common sense is good enough. Northern Antarctica (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No, not all analogies break down. (Though sound ones are not easy to create, granted.) Attributing the arguments I've made on your thinking and behavior to a personal dislike of you is tacky ad hominem Antarctica. (If you can't stand the heat in the kitchen of ideas, then get out of the kitchen.) Your arguments belong on The Jerry Springer Show. (And so does ANI generally. It is a cesspool of irresponsibility here, and cat-fighting is the accepted norm of quality of argument -- you've done nothing but provide additional demonstration of same.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@Northern Antarctica: You claim there's a problem with Giano's comments. What have you done to rectify the alleged problem? Where's the diff of your attempts to resolve what you perceived as problematical? --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso and Northern Antarctica: Actually, there is basis in policy to bigotry. It's found in the Wikimedia non-discrimination policy and all projects, including the English Wikipedia, must follow it.--v/r - TP 05:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This?

The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. The Wikimedia Foundation commits to the principle of equal opportunity, especially in all aspects of employee relations, including employment, salary administration, employee development, promotion, and transfer.

Isn't it quite a stretch to assert that applies to this ANI? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you're unaware. This applies on every Wikimedia server. Last I checked, ANI currently resides on a Wikimedia server. So that should satisfy your policy request from earlier.--v/r - TP 05:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You miss my meaning. Even if Giano's comment was a sexist insult, I doubt it would fall under "discrimination" in the context of the Wikimedia prohibition statement (whose context is "equal opportunity"). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

But why have you decided to try and make an issue of this particular incident by screaming "bigotry"? What about "bigotry" against males, such as you and others like you demonstrate? Eric Corbett 22:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am a male. Northern Antarctica (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you expect me to do? Northern Antarctica (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I expect anybody who brings an issue to ANI to have previously taken some steps to resolve their dispute. Which bit of "What have you done to rectify the alleged problem? didn't you understand? --RexxS (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not that I didn't understand it. It's more that I doubt that there is anything I could have done to persuade Giano that he was wrong. In retrospect, I suppose I could have left a note on his talk page, but you tell me how you think he would have responded? Northern Antarctica (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny is present in an online environment composed primarily of single, white 18-35 males? I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. Tarc (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, seriously. Are you joking? You're going to say, with a straight face, that instances of misogyny should be ignored because our community is predominately male? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The ed17, Actually no, I'm saying that it is a seriously institutionalized, entrenched problem in many electronic social spaces, from the Wikipedia to online gaming to Reddit, and a million others. I don't want to ignore it at all, just trying to point out how widespread it is, so my bad if it came out wrong initially. Tarc (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, and I'm sorry for jumping on you like that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

An interesting argument, Ihardlythinkso. If you feel that uninvolved third parties should not be starting ANI threads, logic dictates that you should feel the same way about uninvolved third parties filing RFArbs. Except, of course, that you failed to express such a sentiment in your comments in the case just passed. It almost leads one to believe that your views on third-party intervention are completely malleable and change to suit whatever agenda you wish to push. Resolute 23:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Logic doesnt't dictate that, Resolute. (I didn't argue against "third-party filings" generally, which you're attempting to make me accountable for by broadening the scope of what I said, which was limited to no uninvolved third-party ANI cases based on CIV.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Giano was outside the pale here, but a lot of what led up to this has also been. If there's anything more to be done, let's let arbcom sort that out. Please let this whole sorry affair just end. Jonathunder (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi all. To answer some of the points above: Yes, the sexist comments bothered me. Yes, I tweeted about it. I'm fed up with my gender being made one of the main points of attack when someone decides to criticize me, and even more fed up with how any man who becomes involved with an on-wiki dispute I'm having is immediately presumed to be either romantically involved with me or "white-knighting" (even here). Am I surprised that this is an issue on Wikipedia? Not at all. I'm used to tech communities being unwelcoming to women. But am I okay with it? Certainly not. I would not have created this AN/I post myself, as I don't think trying to start this discussion as some sort of branch off of the recent ArbCom case/bickering with Giano is wise, but at some point I think it's an issue that should be discussed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want this particular incident to be discussed any further, I am willing to let it drop. Northern Antarctica (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, best to drop it I think. It's a topic worth discussing elsewhere, although some factions would suppress that happening in some places. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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

User:In Ratio Veritas

I noticed In Ratio Veritas (talk · contribs) when he/she added a whole series of edits[164] at List of Italians that seemed to stray into WP:PEACOCK (which I notified[165] the user about). I then noticed further edits by the user that made marginal (and beyond marginal) claims that Napoleon was Italian[166], that Vincenzo Tiberio discovered "the power of antibiotics"[167], and that Italians invented the Magnetic Compass, Concrete, the Assembly Line, Crystal glass, the Dome, Fabric, Insurance, Learned society, and the Submarine[168]. I attempted to point out the need to reflect list articles, reliable sources, and a neutral point of view but attempts clean up just the Vincenzo Tiberio claim has been continually reverted by the user[169][170][171][172] and discussions with the user have gone down hill civility wise to the point of pointlessness[173]. The user keeps reverting[174][175] and labeling my edits "vandalism"[176].Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Some quick thoughts, after perusing some of these diffs and reading talk pages, looking at the history of List of Italians...

• In Ratio Veritas is at least communicative, which is a good sign. Most often, I find people who are particularly tendentious with a "cause" (especially one that might be nationalist like this one) don't want to discuss their edits, and only want to make accusations and edit war. This editor is not, which is good.
• Many of the editor's comments are inappropriate, and step over the line of WP:NPA, such as calling you "authoritarian" and labeling your edits as "vandalism".
• I strongly advise you to no longer revert at List of Italians; while I realize that discussing matters with this editor is frustrating, you've been engaged in a days-long edit war, including multiple back-and-forth reverts in the same day (not approaching or violating WP:3RR but still edit-warring). Reaching out for help here is a better solution than continuing to revert, please don't revert any further though.

I hope that In Ratio Veritas participates in this discussion here. They were notified of this discussion properly. -- Atama頭 21:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

One other note, if I have time, I'll try to speak with In Ratio Veritas personally, with some advice and suggestions, but I'm also trying to thin out the SPI backlog a bit so I don't know how soon I can get to that. -- Atama頭 00:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration and the comments. Other intervention is appreciated. I was not sure if I was dealing with English as a second language (a slight miss-understanding of English), or a newcomer (although the editorial/syntax competence of the editor's first edits seems to show familiarity with Wikipedia). I noticed a while back before this current editor started editing that the article was filled up with very similar edits from another "possibly Italian nationality" tendentious editor (who seems to have multiple accounts). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

User Excirial threatened to block me

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

---

Hello,

I am requesting that users Excirial and TJRC be blocked from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Business_Process_Modeling_Notation_tools#General The user left this message after he was referred by user TJRC.

Information icon Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Comparison of Business Process Modeling Notation tools. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

They both have repeated removed the following text from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Business_Process_Modeling_Notation_tools#General: Primarily a BPMN2.0 modeling tool with support for Value Chains, EPC and other notations. Complete revision control. Process simulation & side-by-side model comparison. Custom modeling guidelines. Attribute layers representation. Automatic creation of process documentation (.pdf or MS Word). Embed process models in other HTML5 applications, google docs, and wikis. API for integration with other IT systems. LDAP/AD, support for Sharepoint, and Process Portal for collaboration. QuickModel, collaboration, publication, analysis, reference models, integration with process automation platforms (e.g. execution engines Activiti, jBPM, and SAP).

Nowhere in this text are there advertorial claims as they have implied, and I feel bullied by the two users. If an administrator were to review the entire page, one would see that there are similar "feature" descriptions which neither Excirial nor TJRC target. I agree with them in removing the logo which I placed on the page as it expanded the table, but in no way do I differ from any of the other editors in presenting neutral information for the page. In no way have they proved their claims of conflict of interest and soapboxing. The final revision I posted to the section does indeed follow the Wikipedia guidelines, and does not violate any rules associated with the content on the page.

Please review my request and respond appropriately. This is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marketeer415 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Feature lists and text written in the second person (e.g. "Embed process models in other HTML5 applications") are not really encyclopedic. Thus they are not unreasonably described as "promotional". Please do continue removing obviously promotional text from that or any other article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've given Marketeer415 a 3RR warning, since they're now at four reverts, and would note that anyone calling themselves "Marketeer" may expect scrutiny and even criticism when they're adding apparently promotional prose. @Marketeer415, Please discuss your edits on the talkpage, and bear in mind that Wikipedia has a low tolerance for even a hint of marketing or promotional prose. Acroterion (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Following my edit-warring warning, they reverted again. Now blocked for edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

This one should be quick and easy

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 amused when Shellwood accused me of campaigning against a random princess, less amused when he or she started edit-warring and making petty remarks about me, and not at all amused when he or she referred to my argument as "this losers personal opinions". Normally I would not report such things, but the user shows no intention to drop the edit-warring and/or believes he or she is free to break basic rules of civility and cooperation. Surtsicna (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

And now he or she saw it fit to vandalize my userpage. Surtsicna (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

... And to remove this thread twice from the noticeboard. Well, at least he or she is making it easier for all of us. Surtsicna (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What has happened to you Surtsicna. You see conspiracies and enemies everywhere. Your edit summaries are not much better to be honest.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fairly easy, yeah, but then you were edit-warring a bit, too, as is usual in these kinds of cases (and whatever they are, I really don't think they're much of a "vandal", though the blanking of your user page isn't cool). Seeing as how this dispute kinda came out of nowhere, I'm more willing to chalk this up for both of you getting a bit hot under the collar (them moreso than you, of course, but still). I'll write 'em a stern notice to stop, I'll let this serve as your less-stern notice to also stop, and leave you two to hash it out on the talk page, hopefully. Further misbehavior from them (particularly in the realm outside the article) will result in a block, but other than that, go, and edit-war no more. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

*eyeroll* And as usual, things happen while I'm typing. I'll overlook the latest blanking, since it came before my more "official" warning, but Shellwood, if you're reading this, you're treading on very thin ice. Cut it the eff out. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, rats. I saw this earlier, watchlisted Surtsicna's user page to see if it happened again, and blocked Shellwood when it did. i didn't see your comments here until too late. My thoughts are that someone doesn't really need it explained to them that blanking a user page with that edit summary is not OK. Stil, @Writ Keeper and WK:, I'll unblock if you want, or you can if you want. It's too easy to step on someone's toes here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine. Leave things be; it was an inherently blockable action, complicated only by the fact that I was typing my warning and had submitted it unawares. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

BurlesqueCoversGalére

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

User adding unsourced or improperly sourced information to biographical articles such as Mike Scott (musician). Also in breach of WP:3RR 81.86.72.57 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Those additions look pretty sourcy to me (see what I did there?), and there's no 3RR breach. The user is trying to discuss this with you on your talkpage; maybe you might like to have a conversation with them before bringing this to ANI? Yunshui 雲‍水 15:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandal Spam Account

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

---

User:2601:D:6700:25D:8426:ACCE:405B:6A9E looks like nothing but trouble. The name alone implies its a computer generated string and not a legitimate user attempting to join the community. Three edits so far, at best sandbox tests and at worst warming up for vandalism. I would recommend deleting the account if possible. -OberRanks (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that is just an IPv6 address.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed an IPv6 address, not a username. The edits are concerning, though, and I've left the IP a warning. In future, please bring such concerns to WP:AIV, rather than here. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec)User:OberRanks. We do not delete accounts, even when problematic. As noted, this is an IP address. They aren't starting out well, but looks to me like they are just testing to see if it is true that anyone can edit. Consider giving them a welcoming template.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

IPv6 address schemes use a hexadecimal series of digits (0-F) in groups separated by colons, in the same way that IPv4 addresses use decimal number groupings (octets) separated by periods. This is quite clearly an anonymous editor. Please note that it's common for editors to experiment (especially new and/or anonymous editors), and we even have templates that reference experimentation for such edits without going so far as to call someone a "vandal". Please take care not to scare away new or potential editors in your efforts to protect the project, that can be just as disruptive and potentially more threatening to the project than vandalism itself. -- Atama頭 16:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's undoubtedly an IP editor. Mousing over the link with popups says that it's an IP user. K6ka (talk | contribs) 17:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Another hint is at the logs for the editor. You'll see no account creation log, anyone who has an account will have that listed as the first log entry. -- Atama頭 17:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That's only true for accounts created after September 5, 2005. Older accounts don't show up in the creation log. --Carnildo (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

A "computer generated string", you say? It is actually a IPv6 address. Anyway, you can't delete the account as it is IP address (and you can't delete named accounts either, and IP users usually are a part of the community). The only valid point here is their "vandalism". That said, looks like a test edit (where the user should be directed to WP:SAND because they've only ever made 3 edits) and not genuine vandalism (which should go to WP:AIV). Epicgenius (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• ...and I've given the a Welcome template. I hope User:OberRanks will drop by their talkpage to apologize for their "random-generated...not wanting to join community]] statement that was anythign but WP:AGF. IPv6 has been around for a couple of years now ... with announcements on the project to advise people to "be aware" of the new IP format ES&L 17:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Meatpuppetry threats

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

---

Trueblood786 (talk · contribs)

I am not sure how to deal with this but Trueblood is making threats of meatpuppetry (1, 2) even after I told him to read WP:MEAT. -- SMS ^Talk 21:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not happy about his edit at the article talk page saying " BTW most Sudhans are white blue eyed blonds, while most hindoos are black." You were supposed to notify him by the way, but I have. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Or the comment at Talk:Sudhan " the only puppets here are you two hindoos". Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Was going to say the same thing. Also said the page was destroyed by "two hindoos"Nil Einne (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing partly Trueblood with Trueblood786? The link at the top of the thread goes to the wrong page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonathan. I've fixed the link at the top. (I don't think there's been any confusion in the comments here, as "Trueblood" without the 786 hasn't edited since 2008.) Bishonen | talk 22:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC).

Thanks Jonathan and Bishonen. I am sorry for that confusion. -- SMS ^Talk 22:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all; I have deleted the errorneous ANI notification at Trueblood's talk page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That is a fact the two hindoos destroyed this page. There is nothing wrong with people who are part this tribe to actually look at this page to see what these two have done. That is called freedom of speach, what right do you guys think you have to destroy this page, even with proper references. There will be a lot of editors and there were a lot of editors for this page, when these two started to threaten people most backed down. I wont back down to some guys who have no clue about sudhans and have made this page into a Indian Page, while in fact Azad Kashmir and Sudhans are not part of India. There are separate and identified as such by the United Nations. So if someone else wants to look at their edits they think it is a threat, i dont think so

Trueblood (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Trueblood, does that statement mean you're still intending to "ask the Sudhan education conference to look into this site and have their 4000 members start editing, and review why you two have done to the Sudhan Tribe"? In the name of freedom of speech? Bishonen | talk 22:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC).

Anyone has a write to look at this article, if the Sudhans look at it and see what these two have done, clearly, if one does not even have any idea what Sudhans are, they should not be editing. This guy said in his post that Sudhan Education confernce is some self thing, well it is a NGO fully recognized by the Government has 4000 members, the tribe has 500,000 members, clearly the opinion of two indians who have never met a sudhan should not count as much

Trueblood (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And we possibly have one meatpuppet already Ibby110 (talk · contribs). -- SMS ^Talk 22:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd also point out here that the racial undertones involved in this discussion is a breach of civility protocols in my mind. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed they are. Trueblood, everybody has a right to read, but nobody has a right to recruit people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. Please read the sockpuppetry policy. The specific rule is at WP:MEAT. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC).

So anyone who disagrees with Indians is a puppet. Good luck

Trueblood (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
so according to you no one except you have the right to edit. These two recruited each other, and destryoed this article, now there will be thousands of editors who also have independent opinions. So this guys thinks this new editor is a puppet, well he is an editor. Just like the rest of you. Free flow of information is what wikepedia is all about, this is not the soviet union, but I guess you guys think it is Trueblood (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Not much use dancing around this any longer. Blocked for meatpuppetry threats, actual meatpuppetry (if your last post is to be believed), personal attacks ("You two hindoos recruited each other and destroyed this article" (repeated again right here), "This guy just believes he owns this site" and not being here to help create an encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 22:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC).

• Good block. Good duration. Well-merited. --John (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Echoing John's sentiments, and also noting that I've never heard anyone use the term "Hindoo" before, probably as it is both archaic and vulgar . Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

How is this a threat? Don't Sudhans have the right to edit their own articles in reference to them selves. Are you going to ban everyone that is trying to make agruments based on real references? 198.151.130.34 (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 198.151.130.34 (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Unless an editor has a topic ban preventing them from editing on a certain subject, any contributor can edit any article of Wikipedia. But just because you make an edit doesn't mean that it will go unchallenged. The content of Wikipedia evolves and is constantly changing.

I don't think you can speak of "rights" as Wikimedia Foundation is a nonprofit organization, not some national government ensuring civil rights. Everyone who edits WP has to adhere to WP guidelines and policies or that right can be taken away. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Hot Stop

User deleted comments in opposition to a motion without comment [177] and then refused to justify his actions when challenged, additionally insulting another editor (me) in the edit summary.[178] 91.125.163.45 (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• You don't seem to have notified @User:Hot Stop of this thread, so I pinged them. Beyond that, I'd say your complaint is valid, and the user in question has a history: see here. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 03:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  Hot Stop notified formally. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 03:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• All I'm going to say here is that I undid his comment (which was no less snarky than anything I wrote) because the entire idea of the "ready" tag is to get an admin to review the nomination. The OP is hardly an admin and was highly involved in the discussion and shouldn't have been making that decision. Hot Stop 03:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  I'd say that "poor baby" in the edit summary of the diff on your talk page was pushing the limits. I think you might have done better to respond to that with the explanation you just gave. So I think that while 91.125.163.45 is understandably upset with you, no actual violation occurred here. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks. Hot Stop 04:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

strange userpage / provocator agent?

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

 – User blocked, and user should not be unblocked without consulting ArbCom. I won't archive this for a little while so others can confirm that it isn't just me being power mad. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

At AIV, where I had posted this first, I was instructed to take it to ANI.
When I checked a somewhat out-of-scope-looking image over at Commons, I was taken to the userpage of Soixante Nerf (talk · contribs), which appeared immediately rather fishy to me. As I am not well-versed with :en's terms, please take a close look at the userpage of this self-proclaimed 16-year-old, who has mostly edited his/her userpage. Something seems to be very wrong there. Some of his/her edit-summaries and the links in the last line of the userpage make it rather unlikely that this is a 16-year-old. Eventually this might be a Agent provocateur, who wants to put Wikipedia in a bad light. --Túrelio (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with this userpage, or any edits this user has made. Please assume good faith and be welcoming to new editors. I would in fact delete/remove this report. It is inappropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Look very carefully at the links at the very bottom of the user page (and links elsewhere). The user page should be deleted and account blocked immediately. It could be an attack page on a minor, we can't take any chances.--I am One of Many (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing the issue here. They've done a lot of work on their userpage, yeah. They have some interesting choices in articles to edit, yeah. Their external links in some places just come back here to Wikipedia, yeah. Their grammar, wording, and even some edit-summaries certainly fit the intellectual and age description. They're not a minor. The external links go to a subdomain of a website (lisaem) that happens to meet what the person claims to be their name. What's the problem? ES&L 17:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Whether it matters or not, their self-proclaimed birth date does make them a minor in most places, at least in Florida where the Foundation is legally based. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with I am One of Many. Túrelio was quite correct to bring this here per Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. We have here someone (Redacted). In many US states and in US Federal law, 16 is below the age of consent. Voceditenore (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have suppressed her page as it contained way too much personal detail for a minor. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It also had a photograph. If the girl in the image was someone else, that was potentially very serious. If it was an adult posing as a 16 year old, ditto. Voceditenore (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The image have now been deleted at Commons, as it was out-of-scope. --Túrelio (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Four possibilities here, from (IMHO) most to least likely: (1). Journalist or blogger posing as underage "jailbait" so as to shame Wikipedia. Reddit got a lot of well-deserved bad publicity not too long ago for having a "jailbait" forum, could be an attempt to make Wikipedia look similarly bad. (2). Law enforcement trying to catch pedos by posing as "jailbait" user and seeing who sends them messages or otherwise interacts with or defends them. (3). Someone creating fake accounts to bully some kid. Mean, but hey, it happens. (4). Some kid trying to shock their parents by being "jailbait" online. Basically the novel Dinky Hocker Shoots Smack for the web 2.0 era. Regardless of which possibility it is, no good can come to Wikipedia by having a "jailbait" user page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • All are possible and a misuse of a user account. I'm especially concerned about some version of (3). I am One of Many (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    • A side note, "soixante nerf" seems like a slight modification of the French phrase "soixante neuf" which is slang for a sexual position. This seems consistent with much of the editor's interests (see their contribution history), but provocative usernames are often associated with disruptive intentions. -- Atama頭 19:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this editor was not notified of this discussion? Is there a reason why this user page was already deleted before hearing from the editor? It seemed like there was discussion going on and the editor spent a lot of time creating her user page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason why the page was deleted is outlined at WP:KID, already linked to above in this discussion. As to your other question, I don't think there is a good reason except that it was forgotten (not a good excuse, I know). I'll rectify that now. -- Atama頭 21:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

For more background as to why user pages like this are often deleted, read the arbitration discussion here. -- Atama頭 21:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: I saw User:Soixante nerf early on, after seeing her edit the Erotic sexual denial article, and I discussed her user page, including the fact that her username seems to mean soixante neuf, and the existence of all the links (links that are not directly Wikipedia links...but double as Wikipedia links), with a few Wikipedia editors via email; we were all concerned, some of us more concerned than others. One of the editors I discussed the matter with brought up WP:CHILDPROTECT, but wondered if she is too old for that policy to apply to her; I assured the editor that the policy applies to late teenagers who are underage as well. But since User:Soixante nerf says she is a late teenager, though still under age with regard to most countries, I decided to let the matter play out itself, especially given the editor's feelings toward Wikipedia. I may have acted wrongly in that regard, and it seems from above that others would agree that I did. As for the editors I was in discussion with about this matter, it was me who contacted all three and I did not reveal their identities to each other (in fact, only one of them was aware that I was in discussion with another Wikipedia editor about this matter), just like I will not reveal their identities here in this discussion. If they want to comment here, they will. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) The age of consent is lower than 16 in some countries, so there's no need to worry yet, at least until a checkuser can check out which country User:Soixante nerf's IP address is located (and even then, we don't have definitive evidence that this user is a minor). But if the user is a minor in a country where the age of consent is higher than 16, then there's a big problem and the user may need to be scrutinized. Epicgenius (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Umm... excuse me for being late to the party, but no one told me that all this was going on.

Four possibilities here, from (IMHO) most to least likely:

Journalist or blogger posing as underage "jailbait" so as to shame Wikipedia.

Do you really think that is the most likely explanation? That's terrible!

Someone creating fake accounts to bully some kid. Mean, but hey, it happens

That is also a terrible thing to think. But if it really happens, I guess that is even more terrible.

Some kid trying to shock their parents by being "jailbait" online.

My parents do not know I registered an account with Wikipedia and I am sure they do not care. I am also sure that if they saw my account name, they would think it as funny as everyone else does.

Law enforcement trying to catch pedos by posing as "jailbait" user and seeing who sends them messages or otherwise interacts with

I am not going to respond to old weirdos who come on to me online, here or anywhere else. There are plenty of young wierdos in my dorm.

Again,

Four possibilities here, from (IMHO) most to least likely

Note that in your exhaustive list of possibilities, you omitted the one that should have been listed first: that I am just a smart 16 year-old.

But you didn't even consider that as a possibility. You said you will only consider descriptions of me that are evil. It's a trap. It's a pedophile.

Does anyone else see anything wrong with this? Might it perhaps be unfair when deciding whether I will be allowed to edit Wikipedia? Is rejecting the obvious explanation right at the start really the best way to decide what to believe—ever?

or defends [her].

That is a very worrisome statement to me. If I am in a contentious situation as an editor, everyone involved has now been warned not to support my position because if they do, an admin at this notice board will assume they are a criminal. I very seriously object to that statement. It isolates me from legitimate article-related communication.

It also had a photograph. If the girl in the image was someone else, that was potentially very serious. If it was an adult posing as a 16 year old, ditto.

Gee, thanks a lot. The photo was of me.

"soixante nerf" seems like a slight modification of the French phrase "soixante neuf" 

It is. So what? I think it is funny, my roommate thinks it's funny, and my friends here think it is funny. If some of you people are really this screwed up, then just let me pick a different name.

WP:CHILDPROTECT, but wondered if she is too old for that policy to apply to her;

I am not a Beiber-obsessed little girl wandering around backstage flirting with roadies at a concert. I am a college student in a dorm. Guys live in both rooms next to mine. I have all the freedom and responsibility of every other student here. I know this will shock and horrify you, but I even have sex, too. (I apologize for using such filthy language.)

And to show the level of depravity to which those godless Liberals have sunk our once-great country, my parents know about it and they think its fine. They have even had my GF over for dinner! But, then, you can't expect better from a couple of progressive, atheist, socialist PhDs.

I used the term "jailbait" because I think the phrase is hilarious, and I put it in my "a.k.a." list because it really is my nickname here. Also on that list was "speedy," which I was called one time because of my use of a larger-than-usually-prescribed amount of (legitimately prescribed) Ritalin.

I'll let you figure out why I'm called "spanky."

Sadly, I can only play with freshmen because sophomores know they could be pulled out of school and thrown in prison for 30 years if they do the very same thing a few freshmen have already done with impunity, and the very same thing they can do themselves in a few months on my birthday. In fact, I have considered throwing a particularly exciting birthday party with only 19 year-olds invited.

But the Juniors had better keep at least 10 feet away from me at all times and never be alone with me, or they're in a HEAP o' trouble!

Perhaps you see why I said, "I should write a book about the experience of being jailbait." I was referring to the grossly illogical consequences of these "protect the innocent girl's virtue" laws, the strangest of which happened when my GF turned 19. For a long time (by my standards), she was legally allowed to do stuff with everyone's blessing. These days, we could even have gotten married! Then literally the next day, she was a felon in danger of being imprisoned for decades and branded a monster if she did the very same things to me that she did legally just a few hours earlier. The kicker is, in just a few months, the exact same stuff will suddenly become perfectly legal again.

The unjust nature of this strange and shameful paradox was briefly taken notice of in several campus forums. But to me, it was my proud "15 minutes of fame," and the basis for (jokingly) calling myself a "dorm celebrity" on my user page. I found it so cool because I was not one of the popular girls in high school. It was also the genesis of my nickname, "jailbait," which I really love, is used by my friends more than "Lisa", and is now my favorite internet handle.

Your concern is appreciated, but unnecessary and, I think, unwarranted. I try not to take offense, and I remind myself that that you don't know me, and that you are just being safe instead of sorry, and as with powerful drugs, some people do need to be protected from their naive stupidity.

I discussed her user page, and her username with a few others.

You had email conversations about me with several people and even blanked my user page, yet it never occurred to you to advise me, tell me, or most of all, ask me anything. Nor did anyone see fit to let me know about this long discussion, in which I am the one being discussed. Instead, my user page was blanked without me being told first or being allowed to bring it into compliance with whatever rules apply.

the links in the last line of the userpage

Download and look at those links. You will see that they are simple redirects. I added them because most of them are, to the non screwed-up, ironic and humorous. Like having "Liberal" point to the article for "Communist." I used redirects to prevent readers from seeing the punch line in the link name.

But nobody ever asked me why. Instead, my links are used by admins here as evidence of my being evil.

Some of his/her edit-summaries make it unlikely that this is a 16-year-old.

I speak proper English, am intelligent, literate, well-informed in many areas, and I am 16. Since that is next-to impossible in the United States, you conclude that I am a much older person—probably a man—pretending to be me. Worse, I now have to defend myself about it.

This is a trigger issue with me, because in grade school I was accused of plagiarism, and the reason given (in front of the class) was that I had obviously copied my book report verbatim from the book jacket. I was so disheartened and despondent about this being my reward for excellent work that I never even showed him the book jacket. I just passively said nothing and didn't defended myself.

Well, I'm defending myself now.

This kind of moral panic craziness tar pit is exactly why I edited anonymously for so many years. And if things I've seen at WP in the past are any indication, it looks like pretty soon I will be correcting grammar anonymously here again. You already deleted my user page. The next step will be to ignore everything I just said, come to some kind of wrong, bizarre decision, and delete *me* as well.

I suppose I should have known better than to establish an account. There are screwed-up weirdos here alright, but they are not pedos.

Please reinstate my user page and advise me of what you don't like about it, so I can change it to one that you do like.

Please. ☺

I see no problem with this userpage, or any edits this user has made. Please assume good faith and be welcoming to new editors. I would in fact delete/remove this report. It is inappropriate. Capitalismojo (talk)

I'm not seeing the issue here. They've done a lot of work on their userpage, yeah. They have some interesting choices in articles to edit, yeah. Their external links in some places just come back here to Wikipedia, yeah. The external links go to a subdomain of a website (lisaem) that happens to meet what the person claims to be their name. What's the problem? ES&L 17:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, capitalismo and ESL. It is relieving to know that there are as many as two people here with common sense.

Lisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soixante Nerf (talk • contribs) 00:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Soixante Nerf, you were already pinged when Túrelio made their original post. How did you not know that this was going on? (Unless, of course, you're a troll, which, judging by your editing style, is easy to assume...) Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Last night, I began a rather long defense of a very popular webcomic that was deleted for not being notable, even though it has fan pages and is sold as a book on Amazon. I went to sleep because I have an early class tuesday and thursday. I got back to it today around 6pm, after classes and then the dining hall. The page still open on my screen had no notifications on it. I deleted most of what I wrote last night as unnecessary distraction from my main point, then posted it, as you can see on my contributions list. As soon as a new page loaded, I saw the "messages" flag, came here, and hit the ceiling.

Thank you for asking me, BTW, instead of making the ugliest possible misinterpretation that you could.

How did you not know that this was going on unless you're a troll?

The question makes no sense. A troll would drop everything and come here immediately, to wallow in the attention. Why is my not doing that evidence of trolling?

I'm starting to understand how women felt when they were tried for being "witches." The jury had concluded guilt before even hearing the defendant (as starblind said he did, above), and the entire meaning of "evidence" was turned on its head.

a troll, which, judging by your editing style, is easy to assume

What is it about my editing style that makes you believe I'm a troll? All my edits are punctuation and grammar.

Forget what I said about you not making the worst possible interpretation you can. I figured that when I had a named account, that I would soon be banned by an admin for not agreeing with an article's owner in a content dispute. But I now consider it inevitable that I will be banned in less than a day for replying to the issues in this pointless noticeboard "incident.

Why not just let me recreate a politically-correct user page and continue fixing punctuation errors? I never started a fight here; I just made a funny user page that was deleted by people with nothing better to do.

One more thing occurs to me. I'm not sure how to phrase it, and it will be interesting to see how the crazy people here twist it into evidence of trolling or media conspiracy. But my guess is that my ex- user page is probably just what one would expect from a 16 year-old who's free of her parents for the first time and finds herself in a dorm of guys (and girls) more than willing to help her explore this new, exciting thing called sexuality.

To anyone who's both intelligent and not crazy, that would be almost certainly true, a no-brainer. It would also clearly be a more likely explanation of my humorous user page than "it's the undercover cops", "it's a disrupting troll," or "it's an old pedophile."

I don't like this conversation. In fact I hate it, and I've asked several times to please stop it. I just want to fix minor errors in Wikipedia, and if you end this circus, that's what I'll do.

To sane people, my return to low-key editing would be proof that—what do you know—she didn't come here to fight; she came here to fix grammar mistakes. But I don't think that the kind of people who've accused me of crazy stuff will do that. They don't seem to be the kind of people who would ever say "wow, I suspected that Lisa came here to trick us for Fox News, but I realize that I was wrong."

I observe that some people who hang around this noticeboard are eager to believe that conspiracies by the media, pedophilia, and clever traps to trick them are literally the only explanations for a smart girl with a dry sense of humor editing Wikipedia. I think that probably, once that kind of person gets started blaming and judging and accusing, that they are emotionally incapable of any ending other than "Beat her up! Ban her! No 16 year-old could be that literate; she's an agent provocateur, satanic and evil pedophile come to trick and discredit us!"

There is no way to defend yourself against that using logic and reason because this is the only time they ever get to bully and hurt other people—which is how the lesser-intelligent adapt to being bullied and hurt.

Since they appear to be a vast majority here, I think it's a foregone conclusion that they will use my very words right now to whoop themselves up, ban me within 24 hours, then go find someone else to hurt. In fact, the only reason I don't just cancel my account in protest is that those same people would somehow manage to interpret it as confirming their manifestly unwarranted, ridiculous theories.

It's too bad, too, because all I really want to do is fix grammar errors. Soixante Nerf 03:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soixante Nerf (talk • contribs)

"I know this will shock and horrify you, but I actually have sex, too."

Soixante Nerf, LOL, you're barking up the wrong tree with that one. As one of the editors around here well educated on sexual topics, I'm not sure that there is any sexual topic that would shock me. Certainly, there are ones that horrify me, but a 16-year-old having sex is not it. And for those stating "pedo" ("pedos"), that's not an accurate definition of pedophilia when it comes to adult sexual attraction to 16-year-olds. Not to mention that 16-year-olds can be pedophiles as well. But oh well. Like the Pedophilia article notes, people do misuse the term.

"You had email conversations about me with several people and even blanked my user page, yet it never occurred to you to advise me, tell me, or most of all, ask me anything. Nor did anyone see fit to let me know about this long discussion, in which I am the one being discussed. Instead, my user page was blanked without me being told first or being allowed to bring it into compliance with whatever rules apply."

Yep, I had email discussions with a few (not several) people about you, and I even mentioned to one Wikipedia editor that you remind me a little of myself when I was your age. But I didn't blank your user page; the person who did that identified himself above. And, no, I wouldn't contact you to tell you that I had email discussions about you. Not unless it was something you needed to be informed of. Like I stated, I decided to let things play out. If there was truly something wrong with your user page, others would tackle that; I wanted no part in tackling it. I queried others about you because I know how this site works and I knew that there was a chance that others might approach you about the things that you are now facing here in this WP:ANI discussion, and so I wanted opinions on the matter. Many Wikipedia editors here converse via email about Wikipedia and other Wikipedia editors, with it never occurring to them that they should let the people they were discussing know of that discussion, especially if most or all aspects of that discussion are better left off Wikipedia and/or away from the people the discussion concerns.

As for you not being notified of this WP:ANI discussion, not only were you notified via WP:Echo, you were notified on your user talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Flyer, I read your user page and some of your stuff, and it made me extremely happy! You are so obviously me in the future who came back in a time machine to write those things, that I am absolutely overjoyed to know time-travel is possible. Soixante Nerf 05:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soixante Nerf (talk • contribs)

The deletion of your user page was simply a good-faith effort to protect a young person. Wikipedia is anonymous unless one chooses to disclose who they are. Your edits are not all grammatical in nature. Some of your edits are corrections to mathematical equations, correct rephrasing of physical forces and processes, and the appropriate addition a highly technical scientific reference to an article. We do assume good faith when it is reasonable, but in this case, it did not appear reasonable regarding your user page. I am One of Many (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That was not what I said, at all. congratulations for taking my words and skewing their meaning completely. I was just saying that, as Flyer22 stated above, the Echo notifications systems notify you of this post immediately, when your name is linked inside a post. that said, I was saying that some might think you are a troll (I don't) but based on your main topic of editing in some reproduction-related articles, it is likely that at least one editor may think that. Epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Epicgenius, I resisted stating the following, but I've finally given into temptation: I wouldn't call those articles "reproduction-related articles," LOL, but I know what you mean. Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• SN, as one of the editors who engaged in off-wiki discussion about you, I want to say here that such discussions are perfectly legitimate. They can help to head off trouble at the pass before it blows up into a big ugly mess that disrupts the project, and they also serve to minimize the Streisand effect wherein sensitive information gets seen by a lot more people than would otherwise see it. Besides, Wikipedians are people—no, really!—and people like to gossip. I'd guess that such discussions happen every day, although I couldn't be sure.

  I'm the editor who wondered "aloud" about WP:CHILDPROTECT. I initially concluded that yours was a borderline case that merited further watching but not necessarily immediate action. I thought—and still think—that putting those links at the end of your user page was unwise. I'm the last person who's going to judge you, but I think there's a time and a place. Putting certain things on the same page where you identify yourself as a minor is a potential problem for three reasons: (1) it's liable to bring unwanted attention your way from people who may seek to exploit you or defame Wikipedia, (2) it's something you may well regret later, when you're older, no matter how appropriate you think it is right now, and (3) rightly or wrongly, it gets many of your fellow editors upset, thereby disrupting the project, and disrupting the project is never cool. Perhaps you didn't mean your page to be provocative—I'm certainly willing to assume good faith on that point—but some people took it that way, and that was disruptive, whatever the intent.

  If you really are sixteen, then you must know perfectly well that you're precocious and realize the fact that sometimes you're going to make people suspicious just by being yourself. C'est la vie. I hope you won't judge us too harshly for wondering and worrying. For what it's worth, one of the reasons I hesitated to report you is that I'm pretty sure that if Wikipedia had been around when I was your age, I would have been involved with it—and probably pushing the boundaries. I'm sure we're all glad to know you're here to do good work. If you continue with that and try to keep your user page uncontroversial, you should be fine. And don't take this as official—I'm not an administrator—but I wouldn't worry about your username. (Just don't get any ideas about increasing it by one whole number en français, as someone of a thoroughly monolingual persuasion might misconstrue that.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked this account indefinitely, and it should not be unblocked without the consent of ArbCom. I don't think there's much reason to continue a conversation here, but I think removing the thread would backfire, so I'll just suggest it instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I did a checkuser and reviewed the edits to the user page, and the other edits made by this user account. Based on this information, I agree that the account should be blocked and referred to ArbCom. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC) (Sydney Poore)
  • As the oversighter / checkuser who raised the issue with the rest of Functionaries, I agree with Floquenbeam's actions and that the account should not be unblocked without consulting ArbCom. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • In my capacity as Checkuser here, I have to concur with the actions taken here - Alison ^❤ 20:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Surely something should be said to the editors who apparently fell for this whole thing hook, line, and sinker. Particularly troubling is editors trying to ignore WP:CHILDPROTECT, which being a policy with distinct legal and public-relations consequences shouldn't be tossed aside on a whim. It isn't like letting a 3RR issue slide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Probably. They should've been blocked as a trolling account regardless of any CHILDPROTECT things, and I've just gone ahead and mopped up everything they were involved in (almost all of it was ridiculous oversimplification of articles, pure trolling, or a combination of the two). And I have no intention of going anywhere near most of those articles any time soon... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• • • (edit conflict) I can't see anything on this page that warrants even considering a block. I can't see what was on the user page because it has been suppressed, but judging from the descriptions above, nothing there would have warranted a block either. Obviously, checkusers have access to data that I do not, and that may well give v ery good reasons for blocking. I wish that checkusers felt more able to say in general terms some of the reasons for their cations, when doing so would not out soemoen or violate the privacy policy, but I am not in a position to judge if that could be done in any particular case. (for example "Evidence shows that User:X is a sockpuppet of a banned user") Perhaps I am naive, I found the voice of the self-described teen above plausible, although of course that is no proof of anything. If the above poster was in fact duping editors here with malign intent, a block may have been the best way. If the editor was accurately self-describing, then we have probably lost a potentially valuable contributor. DES ^(talk) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Try reading some of their comments in this thread. They're trolling, pure and simple. Almost every single one of their edits was unconstructive, and I don't think you're familiar with WP:CHILDPROTECT at all, given that comment. We haven't lost a potentially valuable contributor at all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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.

---

• • • Andrew Lenahan (Starblind), I take WP:CHILDPROTECT seriously (as a lot of editors at this site know) and I'm certain that Rivertorch does as well. That policy, however, is significantly more so about pedophiles, other types of people who are interested in sexual activity with an underage (non-adult) person and those advocating such behavior, and any of those types trying to contact an underage person on Wikipedia, than it is about an underage person giving out too much personal information on Wikipedia....unless giving it out to such people. I've never seen it applied to a case such as Soixante Nerf's case; all of that is where my not applying it to this case comes from, though I was clear above that WP:CHILDPROTECT applies to late teenagers who are underage as much as it does to prepubescent children. And if one wants to state that WP:CHILDPROTECT should have been applied because Soixante Nerf might be a pedophile, we'd need proof or good suspicion of that. WP:CHILDPROTECT was not taken into consideration, as far as we know, when Soixante Nerf's user page was "deleted" and then when Soixante Nerf was blocked. And it was not mentioned in this thread until I brought it up. Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion are the pages that were applied when the blanking of this user's user page took place. Above, someone else mentioned Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy (WP:KID). And none of those are official guidelines or policies, but they work just as efficiently. Neither I nor Rivertorch "fell for this whole thing hook, line, and sinker," especially not Rivertorch, who even hinted at doubt when he stated above..."If you really are sixteen." Flyer22 (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• • • Note: Because I was in the process of responding to Starblind, I did not know that Writ Keeper had already closed this thread. Flyer22 (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)Lukeno94 I am perfectly well aware of WP:CHILDPROTECT and I just reviewed it in case I had forgotten something. I hadn't. I see no trolling above, merely an angry and sarcastic editor, or else someone doing a good job of posing as such. Frankly i find the former more likely, although impersonation does occur online quite often, and I know it. I reviewed a fair number of the editor's article space contributions, and most of them look either constructive or ill advised but honestly attempting to be helpful. I saw no vandalism or nonconstructive editing. There is a somewhat unusual mix of scientific topics with sexual ones, but both are in my view plausible interests for the editor as self-described. I see no evidence of any attempt to attract anyone, of any age, into a sexual or romantic relationship, unless merely editing sexual topics con be so construed. I will freely grant that if the editor was lying about her age, or gender, or both, that would be a large red flag. Checkusers may have relevant data on that, I don't see any behavioral clues to suggest such. I agree that it was unwise for the editor, if posting in good faith, to post personal information under the alleged circumstances, and that the suppression of the user page was in accord with policy and probably a good idea. But I frankly don't see what makes people so ready to assume bad faith here, any checkuser evidence aside. DES ^(talk) 01:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

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