Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive847

Palestinewillbefree

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 first became aware of this user earlier today when I was patroling recent changes. The name itself stuck me as a bit dicey, so I looked at the user's talk page and discovered he had authored an article titled Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which had a prod on it and to which I added a speedy, as it is simply an opinion piece. In addition, find his comment on a talk page of an AfD: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. And third, his violation of the arbcoom 1RR rule here: [1] & [2].

His username might be just fine if he was writing about trees or widgets, but he's not. It is disruptive. I have reported it already on WP:UAA, but that is hugely backlogged. The 1RR violation prompted me to bring it here. Note that other than the csd, I have had no interaction with this editor. Will notify promptly of this discussion. John from Idegon (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Gamaliel (talk) 04:15, 15 July 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.

Jarlaxle sock

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

---

No admin seems to be currently watching WP:AIV - could someone please block the Jarlaxle socks vandalising User talk:Nishidani? Thanks --NSH001 (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Materialscientist for blocking this character. --NSH001 (talk) 07:37, 14 July 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.

Advertising of shady business by User:Ajysharmag

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 happen to come across one User:Ajysharmag has been using his userpage for advertising of a Shady business (Providing Escort girls or "Pimping") , something which is against Indian Laws . Requesting to immediately block this user indefinitely without further notice. Also , could you send me a link of the wikipedia policy made for such incidents that include illegal advertising and promotion of malicious businesses ? All i could come across was the "no Advertising" policy under speedy deletion criteria and i really feel this incident should be covered under a different policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SahilSahadevan (talk • contribs) 11:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the page as it was advertising. I do not believe there is any additional policy that would include "illegal advertising". Since each country and possibly sub national government can have their own laws it would be impossible for Wikipedia to be able to know what is illegal in every jurisdiction. GB fan 11:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I also notified User:Ajysharmag of this thread. GB fan 11:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

We get one or two of these a day. I hard-block them as spambots on sight, and it would be nice if we could devise an edit filter. Userspace really isn't meant as a free webhost for solicitations for prostitution. I've blocked the account. This thread is being too nice about this blatant abuse: some of them have incorporated their phone numbers into their account names, and this has been going on for months. Acroterion (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Pimping ain't easy.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:27, 15 July 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:WeirdPsycopath

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 not know if this is the right place to make is complaint. The reason I come here is because the user WeirdPsycopath, Use my discussion to let me Personal attacks and insults. This is the time, because I undo your edits are incorrect.. Here I give some evidence:

• Diff, May 26, 2014
• Diff, July 15, 2014
• Diff, July 15, 2014. Second message left by user
• Diff, July 15, 2014. Third message left by user

I try to explain that to reverse your edits, but did not seem to care much. Sorry if my English is very bad, but I speak Spanish. And I wish you can do something about it because I'm tired.--Damián (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, he is very much over the top. To be fair, I have given him a very clear final warning. If he does it again, myself or any other admin will block him. He doesn't appear to be here to work with others. He has one final chance to "get it", otherwise he will be blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:08, 15 July 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.

Peter Flight

I have been receiving continued abuse and harassment from someone named user:Peter_Flight.

I am not sure how to link appropriately but you will see his list of changes on my talk history at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Davidmwilliams&action=history

He has posted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:103.27.225.82, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/139.216.98.58, and from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Flight and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/103.27.224.127.

Ironically, when I requested help, I got chastised from an editor!

Nevertheless, apart from making one comment on Peter Flight's talk page (stating he was being cowardly) I have had no interaction with this person and his continued and unprovoked attacks are not fair, or warranted, or appreciated.

I would appreciate some admin involvement to assist with keeping this person away. Davidmwilliams (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Response from 'other editor'. David retaliated by calling him a coward. I warned David (level 1) and Peter (Only warning) as we don't add flame to the fire and pointed him to Wikipedia:Civility. David has ignored it and has deleted my advice on his talk page and seems to not realize that he is adding flame to fire. He has also used the edit summary to call my comments stupid. I also pointed him here as the proper place to go with an editor like this.

Peter on the other seems to be a sock puppet that has had no prior history with David (with this account at least). -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

To add some more information, Peter Flight, whoever he is, appears to have a grievance with an organisation called SKILLED Group. I created that page over 7 years ago, as an ancillary page to my topic on labour hire, which I also created. My reasoning there is simply SKILLED Group is the largest Australian labour hire organisation. Nevertheless, that is moot; the point being I wrote an article on labour hire then another on a company. I don't work for that company and I most certainly have never had any involvement of marketing that company. Peter Flight appears to be disgruntled with them - for reasons I have no knowledge of - and is taking it out on me, despite me being entirely irrelevant to his alleged grievance. This sort of abuse is not something that Wikipedia should permit. Davidmwilliams (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like F-uck Skilled n labour hire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be a sock puppet of Peter Flight. I think Mr. F-uck probably needs a quick block before he becomes even more disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

And Reaper Eternal has cleaned up the whole mess. Thanks. With the vandalism redacted, articles protected, and blocks for the disruptive users, I think we may be done here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Nosepea68 and disruptive editing at Anita Sarkeesian-related topics

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

---

It's time to address the problems caused by Nosepea68 (talk · contribs · count) at Anita Sarkeesian and the related Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. He makes no secret that he dislikes Sarkeesian[3] and has been engaging in serious WP:BLP violations at the articles and talk pages off and on for the last 10 months. Among his several disruptive behaviors is introducing unhelpful edits or outright defamatory material to the articles, and he has been warned and blocked repeatedly. He received several "last straw" warnings[4][5][6] about his behavior in March - after resuming his behavior immediately upon returning from a block - before disappearing. These extended breaks are the only reason he's avoided more serious sanctions for disrupting these highly sensitive articles. He returned tonight, making yet another edit that introduced unsourced, disparaging material about Sarkeesian, removed cited material, and made other unhelpful changes,[7] which he has proceeded to revert war over.[8] Enough is enough, administrator action is needed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The last time this editor was brought to ANI (by myself), he was blocked for 9 reverts to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games in 2 hours. Strangely enough, he accuses Sarkeesian of attention seeking and says "I have not made an article about her in wikipedia" even though he created the article. When editors work to keep BLP-infringing material out, they're "white knights". It seems like a mixture of WP:OWN and WP:TE. Woodroar (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support topic ban covering Sarkeesian and her work. His first article edit involved falsifying the name of a source, [9] and then some disruption. [10] This year, along with the most recent edits, we have this and this on a talk page. The editor needs to focus on something else. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support topic ban per NeilN and the diffs provided above. If user violates, admins can administer appropriate action. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support topic ban, per Cúchullain, NeilN and Woodroar. Single purpose account, not here to contribute constructively. Jarkeld (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• I support a ban. It needs to include the talk pages, where a lot of his disruption takes place in the form of TPG and NOTAFORUM guidelines and unsourced disparaging comments about the subject.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This would have the effect of excluding the user from any activity on Wikipedia, Nosepea68 restricting his or her own edits to those introducing assessments critical of Sarkeesian and her video series. Personally, I would welcome the inclusion of well-sourced negative assessments of either subject if such existed. Over and over again, this user (like other SPAs and IPs apparently dedicated to discrediting Sarkeesian and her work) continued to insert unconstructive material and in this last case, introduced original synthesis from a source already applied to the page. By itself, not particularly noteworthy; in the context of the user's previous edits and the lengthy talk page discussions surrounding those edits, the last straw. User has demonstrated he or she is here for a reason unrelated to building an accurate online encyclopedia. Instead the user seems to be here to disparage the subjects. BusterD (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• After reviewing some of the user's past edits, I've blocked them for a week for various BLP/other/personal attack/other various edits. This should not be taken as action intended to make this discussion moot, just that I believe the users actions justify an independent week long siteblock Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Per Woodroar's comment below, I have significantly increased how long I've blocked Nosepea for. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Given Nosepea's further comments after additional warnings, I have revoked their talkpage access. I'll reconsider the length of the block once this section is closed, or they can of course appeal through WP:UTRS. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• While blocked, Nosepea68 is continuing with his attacks against other editors and the subject. Woodroar (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• I am someone who has been critical of Anita Sarkeesian in the past, and that's in spite of agreeing with her basic thesis that sexism in the gaming community is a problem. However, my serious misgivings about Sarkeesian and her methods would never justify infringement of BLP by giving articles pertaining to Feminist Frequency a blatantly negative bias. That's why we have BLP in the first place — everyone deserves be treated with basic human decency, regardless of their beliefs or past actions. Nosepea68 has failed to take this into consideration in his contributions to these articles, and failed to reflect on his approach after being cautioned about it numerous times. I have to support a topic ban in this case. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• I have changed the block on User:Nosepea68 to indefinite due to their continued disruption and violations of the WP:BLP policy. User can request unblocking with promise to stay away from this particular subject, but since this is virtually the only subject they edit, looks to be a WP:SPA account created specifically to attack Sarkeesian. [11] Naturally, I'll change if the community thinks otherwise. Admins feel free to undo as needed in case I'm not around. Dreadstar ☥ 21:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

As the person who initially placed the block, extended it, and revoked TPA, I just want to say that I support Dreadstar's move here. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure offhand who closed this since it wasn't signed, but to add a note under the hat: although indeffed, the tban conversation isn't moot. It's not something that needs to be finished as long as the indef holds, but indef = indef, not infinite - if @Nosepea68: is unblocked at any point in the remotely near future, this section will be resurrected. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:32, 15 July 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.

Clark Aldrich

It may be wise to get some admin eyes on Clark Aldrich and the talk page. There have been problems at that article before judging from the article history. I think it's on my watchlist because of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive196#Clark_Aldrich and there's a bit of background about an apparent harassment campaign at User_talk:Intrepid_French_Learner#Clark_Aldrich. I'm not going to pretend to understand the background or why the Wezniak vs Aldrich surname issue matters given the nature of information in reliable sources, but apparently it matters enough for the word "libelous" to be used on the talk page. There may also be undeclared COI issues that probably aren't helping. It would be good if some admins watchlisted it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Undiscussed page moves by SMcCandlish

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

---

Last month SMcCandlish moved hundreds(?) of animal breed articles to different titles without seeking any consensus to do so. A good number of these moves were reversed after community consensus was reached in separate discussions at Talk:American Paint Horse and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs. Disclosure: I participated in both of those discussions in favour of restoring the previous titles.

In closing the American Paint Horse discussion, Jenks24 made this comment:

@SMcCandlish: please don't move articles without an RM when you know that there is very likely to objections. It's all very well to cite WP:BOLD, but the the RM page is quite clear that you should only do so "If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move".

For what little it is worth, I had earlier written in the same discussion:

There are probably several others that SMcCandlish has moved without discussion or understanding ... I suggest to that editor that from now on any move of a breed article that he/she may be contemplating should automatically be regarded as contentious, and be subject to a move request in the normal way.

I am curious to know, therefore, why SMcCandlish has without discussion (that I am aware of) recently moved dozens more breed articles. I suggest that making a vast number of page moves while knowing perfectly well that they are contentious, and after being clearly warned that to do so is a misuse of the process, comes very close to being WP:DISRUPTIVE. I'd like to propose that SMcCandlish be deprived of the right to move pages until and unless he/she can clearly demonstrate understanding of what collaborative editing is supposed to mean. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is it even possible to revoke the ability to move pages without blocking someone? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't believe it's possible technically, but that doesn't mean a Move Ban can't be instituted, it's been done before. BMK (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)As far as I can tell, no. Unless you can remove someone's autoconfirmed bit. Which would be kind of cool. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to take any action. He gave an acceptable reason to move and it doesn't seem he expected any controversy.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• (Struck as I was thinking this was about a different set of moves)Seems like reasonable moves based on existing guidelines and policies. There was recently a large RFC that reinforced MOSCAPS over a very similar issue and these moves seem quite in line with the results of that discussion. PaleAqua (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

And these moves don't even raise capitalization or any other MOS issues at all; they're pure WP:AT policy. As noted below, the complainant here is conflating wildly different kinds of page moves, just because they inolve animals and he's taken an intensely censorious, punitive dislike to me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I had assumed they they were more of the same based on some of the articles linked at the top. Sorry. PaleAqua (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• This set of moves looks like the typical fiddling with things that does not help the reader one iota. It's nothing but "busy work". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That comment looks like the typical venting at other editors for self-satisfaction, that does not help ANI or anyone one iota. It's nothing but policy-unrelated "noise". Do people seriously have nothing better to do than hang out here and kick good-faith editors in the shins just because we're not doing precisely the same kinds of editing they'd prefer themselves? Is that really why you're here? Is that rewarding for you?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Bugs' commentary, while a bit more candid than I would put it myself, is pretty well on-point. I'm looking at some of these pagemoves, and if they're clearly supposed by policy, I'd be surprised. Even then, policy is supposed to be descriptive of practices: If you're finding just that many pages that don't conform to policy (or your understanding of it anyway), your response shouldn't be to ram it down everyone's throat, but to question whether the policy is still an accurate reflection of community consensus. Especially when people are complaining. And I frankly question whether your interpretation of WP:AT (specifically, I think you're referring to the WP:NATURAL subsection) is correct; it seems at odds with WP:COMMONNAME. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It's SOP; see WP:AT#Deciding on an article title at "* Naturalness", and search that page throughout for "natural", including in WP:COMMONNAME (and yes, WP:NATURAL of course). If you think that "Hebridean (sheep)" is somehow a more natural or common name that "Hebridean sheep" good luck demonstrating that. Somewhere else. Whether my interpretation of the policy turns out, after some hihgly subjective, nitpicky debate, to not be absolutely 100% perfect, is not an ANI matter, nor any kind of enforcement or disciplinary matter, it would simply be a WT:AT discussion the conclusion of which would be that some wording at AT/DAB needs to be tweaked. Anyway, then see WP:AT#Disambiguation and WP:DAB about not using disambiguators unless necessary to begin with, as in the other kind of move at issue here (see details in longer post below).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You've completely missed my point somehow. I don't care what your personal understanding of WP:AT is. When you stumble across a large number of articles that in your view violate that policy, it falls to you to first verify that your understanding of policy isn't wrong. Based simply on your responses here, and your past issue with pagemoves, I don't believe you did that. You made a bunch of controversial pagemoves that you knew or had reason to know would be controversial based on your past issues that were squarely on point with this matter. Attempting to deflect this by arguing that it's not an ANI issue is not addressing the problem, nor is vomiting up the a wall of text below (which, frankly, is curious behavior if you believe there isn't an ANI issue here). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've already addressed all this in the "vomit" (nice attitude!) that you apparently won't read (if you can't handle a few paragraphs without blowing up on people, what are you doing editing an encyclopedia, which mostly consists of paragraphs of text?!) I accept that you're developing a contrary opinion on the fly about what AT really means with regard to such unnecessarily parenthetical page names, but I'm not, and have sat on this and thought about it for a long time. You having a different take on it all of a sudden (one that's gone from tentative to condemnatory in the space of a few hours, perhaps simply because I'm standing up to you and you're looking for an argument?), it does not make for a case of wrongdoing or negligence on my part, and shaking your fists at me about it won't change any of that. If we all had to stop editing and to start a discussion about everything that someone somewhere might possibly object to, pretty much nothing would ever get edited here. BOLD is policy for a reason. Filibusterers would block all action on anything except the most obscure, boring topics.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If we all had to stop editing and to start a discussion about everything that someone somewhere might possibly object to, pretty much nothing would ever get edited here. Except that you were on clear and unambiguous notice that your novel interpretation of WP:NATURAL was controversial. And frankly, it's incorrect based on a plain reading of WP:AT. Nothing, I repeat, nothing in that policy puts WP:NATURAL on higher ground than WP:COMMONNAME. I would argue that the contrary is plainly the case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No one ever made an argument in this discussion that NATURAL is "on higher ground" that COMMONNAME. The only notice I was on related - I've told you this, what, three times now? - to capitalization, not parenthetical disambiguation. This is essentially moot now anyway; I have no more breed-related articles to move for these or any similar reasons. Most of these moves have stuck, as they should. I notice now that the dogs project pollstacked an RM in their own back yard to move various dog pages back to parenthetical disambiguation, but oh well. It's not like I'm going to go revert an actual RM decision, bogus as it may be. This question basically needs to be settled in an RfC. That is clear now, but only after I boldly made changes, in good faith compliance with AT, and some of these changes were reverted, so now a discussion is in order, e.g. an RfC. This is WP:BRD in action. Before I did anything, all of these categories were not only inconsistent internally, they were wildly inconsistent with each other. We're now much closer to a standard, which editors and readers will understand. So, please get off the high horse. You can't come in here with an uncertain, questioning attitude about my AT interpretation and three hours later be an ostentatious firehose of certainty and accusation just because I'm not agreeing with you. See WP:MASTODON. I don't need to be browbeaten by you any further with your WP:IDHT circular arguments and borderline accusations of bad faith, so good day and please drop it. No one else here is agreeing with your take on this, and I have way better things to do.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• [EC, and my actual first response; the above is later interpolation]: The American Paint Horse and related moves and disputes about them have nothing to do with this sort of move I was doing earlier today. No one notified me of any dispute about dog-related articles, so my expectation would be that any that were disputed (on valid bases) were about the same issue as the horse ones, namely perceptions about how to capitalize based on what the alleged "real" or "official" name of the breed is (with or without "[H|h]orse" or "[D|d]og" at the end of it). While I don't agree with the pro-capitalization crowd on that, I chose not to fight with them about it any further, because of the level of bad-faith-assumptive and attacking invective they were engaging in already (for which several of them could have been sanctioned under MOS discretionary sanctions against personalizing style/titles debates), among other reasons, like just being busy off-wiki, the issue probably being moot eventually the way that downcasing is going, and the kangaroo-court nature of the canvassing-stacked RMs).

  Capitalization changes are not disambiguation fixes. Not every edit to an article that happens to be about an animal is the same thing. Get your facts right before you run off histrionically to ANI.

  Let's be very clear here: I have absolutely no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move from a name that patently violates WP:AT policy because it uses parenthetical disambiguation when natural disambiguation is available (e.g. moving from Hampshire (sheep) and Hebridean (sheep) to AT's preferred Hampshire sheep and Hebridean sheep, especially when numerous articles were already in the correct format, and there's no record of a discussion at WT:AT or WT:DAB coming to a "special exemption for sheep breeds" rule), or because it violates both AT and DAB by using disambiguation at all when there is nothing to disambiguate it from (e.g. moving from Meatmaster (sheep) to Meatmaster, and Perendale (sheep) to Perendale). There are surely several more of the latter sort that need to move from "Whatever sheep" to "Whatever" because their names are trademarks or nonce words that do not actually need to be disambiguated from anything (e.g. Perendale sounds like a placename, but is actually a portmanteaux made up for the breed). Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, wikiprojects cannot make up their own anti-AT/anti-DAB rules, and I did not even see any attempt at one at WikiProject Agriculture or WikiProject Mammals anyway. Similar moves of cats, ducks, chickens, turkeys, goats, donkeys, etc., etc., have been uncontroversial, as they logically should be since they're moving policy non-compliant articles to policy-compliant titles. Note also that admins fulfilled all or almost all of the {{db-move}} requests I used for those I could not move myself, so there did not seem anything problematic in these requests to them, either.

Sarcasm:

I am curious to know, therefore, why User:Justlettersandnumbers has come here to enforce...whatever, while not actually understanding applicable policy and guidelines. For what little it is worth, I suggest to Justlettersandnumbers than from now on any issue he/she has with some another editor be brought up on their talk page instead of running to admin notice boards to start formalized trouble. We have loads of dispute resolution methods, and ANI is principally for vandals and nutjobs, and is toward the last-resort end, not the "this bothered me and I'm in a bad mood" end. I'd like to propose that Justlettersandnumbers be deprived of the right to file noticeboard cases until he/she can clearly demonstrate understanding of what ANI and the other boards are actually for, what a frivolous case is, how dispute resolution works, what our article naming policy says, how consensus works and does not work, what WP:Be bold policy says, and, yes, what collaborative editing is supposed to mean.

Seriously, has it escaped everyone's attention that virtually no WP:MOS/WP:AT regulars ever come to ANI (or AN, AE, etc.) to try to get people punished for failure to comply, only for utterly tendentious, disruptive behavior, meanwhile any number of topical wikiproject editors who do not understand that WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy prohibit them from dictating article titles and content that contravene policies and real guidelines (that they rarely if ever participate in crafting), will turn immediately to admin noticeboards to vindictively punish and muzzle anyone they disagree with? How long is this going to go on? It's time to start judiciously applying WP:BOOMERANG with regard to all this anti-MOS, anti-AT, anti-DAB battlegrounding.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: A warning to Justlettersandnumbers against any further frivolous and vexatious noticeboard filings is probably sufficient. I don't mean to imply anything stronger. As it is, I think ANI and some other noticeboards issue too many non-trivial sanctions against editors who are not habitually disruptive. Many good editors quit over being administratively rough-handled.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Then again, that was before I saw Justlettersandnumbers's blatant canvassing proposal.[12]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Can I point out that the report was filed by User:Justlettersandnumbers, not by User:G S Palmer, who was merely the first commenter. BMK (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Right! Fixed. I mis-copy-pasted. D'oh. Apologies to User:G S Palmer! <sheepish grin>  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, here's my "blatant canvassing proposal", posted on the talk page of G S Palmer:

Anyway, a quick question which I hope you can answer: is it appropriate to notify the various animal breed Wikiprojects of the discussion, or would that look like canvassing?

As it happens, I've only had one answer to that question, and that was from SMcCandlish, whose reply could hardly be taken as dispassionate. I've not notified the WikiProjects affected, nor do I know if it is appropriate to do so. But if it is, would some kind person do it for me? I'd be grateful. Those would seem to include Agriculture, Equine, Dogs, Cats ... and, oh yes, I almost forgot! ... Birds. Thanks either way. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Which is a strong indication that the answer was corect, of course.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Disappointing to say the least. I completely fail to understand how you, SMcCandlish, thought after the kerfuffle surrounding the exact same type of moves to dog breed articles, that it would somehow be completely uncontroversial for sheep breeds. Use this process [RM] if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. It is that simple. Jenks24 (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • And upon further review, I'm reasonably certain the moves were against policy. The claims that they were in line with WP:AT are little more than VAGUEWAVEs. That parenthetical disambiguators should not be used where any other title is possible seems to directly contravene the policy that we should use the common name rather than something made up out of whole cloth. Even if the dog breed pagemoves were a reasonable mistake, to turn around and do precisely the same thing with sheep breed articles one month later is inexcusable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Isn't Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Final decision directly applicable here? "All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes." SMcCandlish does exactly what that says not to, moves first, discusses later (with lengthy posts full of alphabet soup and "personalizing" comments such as on this very page "That comment looks like the typical venting at other editors for self-satisfaction, that does not help ANI or anyone one iota....if you can't handle a few paragraphs without blowing up on people, what are you doing editing an encyclopedia?...please get off the high horse. You can't come in here with an uncertain, questioning attitude about my AT interpretation and three hours later be an ostentatious firehose of certainty and accusation just because I'm not agreeing with you"etc.Smeat75 (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
      • To be fair, the arbcom decision you cite appears to be talking about avoiding overly bold edits to guideline pages, not overly bold actions in actual page moves, but other than that, I agree that SMcCandlish's behaviour is exactly what that case was about, and it has to be stopped. From my position as a distant observer, it sure looks like a long-term pattern: SMcCandlish's attitude to these issues is a classical battleground approach; time and time again he gives the impression of perceiving of his actions as a kind of crusade to bring some corner of Wikipedia under the control of the MOS, and if I remember correctly he has quite openly expressed that he conceives of opposition to this – especially when it comes from the corner of some wikiproject – as some kind of insubordination or "insurgence" that needs to be squashed by the legitimate power of the MOS-wielders. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• General comment: when it comes to contested page moves, you're only permitted to be bold ONCE. Not once per article, once per species, once per genus ... just once overall per type of move. The first time someone complains about a move, you stop. Then you have to gain consensus for any similar move in the future. the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• For I believe the fifth time, these were not the same type of move. The previously disputed moves were about capitalization, a MOS:CAP matter. These moves were about improper disambiguation, a WP:AT matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: This is not SMcCandlish's first rodeo, or even his second or third. This is not about what he does, it is about how he does it, and his behavior toward others when challenged. I think SMC needs a restriction from moving articles or posting requested moves for articles. He is creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND all over the place. As noted, he led a contentious battle over bird names, then next created a circus over capitalization of a few exceptions in horse breed names. Though his current set of moves constitutes natural disambiguation, which I normally favor, SMcCandlish is returning to a bad habit of making massive page moves without discussion or consensus-seeking and then attacking anyone who disagrees with him, usually referring to policies that he was active in writing, usually by bullying others into submission. Here, JLAN has worked hard on the sheep and other farm animal articles and SMC should have posted at article talk before moving, and particularly before moving and "salting" so they couldn't be moved back. SMC knows full well that the animal articles are contentious; for example, WP:DOGS prefers parenthetical disambiguation for breeds, and just had a discussion about the matter reaffirming this concept, while WP:EQUINE has long preferred natural disambiguation for breeds and parenthetical disambiguation for individual named horses. But in other past rodeos, this user wasted endless bandwidth arguing over what constituted a "breed" and at the time, argued for parenthetical disambiguation for quite some time, though after the discussion moved here, he appears to have changed his mind on that issue. Given his history, a restriction of some sort if appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 18:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: I also believe that it is appropriate to notify wikiprojects where this has been an issue (based on current moves and my past knowledge) and I have taken it upon myself to post neutrally worded notifications at WP farm, mammals, birds, dogs, equine and cats. Montanabw^(talk) 19:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with editors above - there was a bunch of controversial pagemoves - and not even a note at the Wikiproject page. Hafspajen (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• "[F]or example, WP:DOGS prefers parenthetical disambiguation" = "WP:DOGS pretends that WP:AT, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:OWN are not real policies".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Support a page move ban on User:SMcCandlish, SMcCandlish has clearly caused enormous disruption across the project with their non-consensus moves, battleground tactics and personal attacks against those who dispute the moves. IF SMcCandlish believes a page move is necessary, then they need to engage the appropriate WikiProject and file at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dreadstar ☥ 20:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support move ban, with deference to other discussants as to the terms (i.e., length). The evident battleground mentality and refusal to develop clue after the last controversial set of pagemoves indicates that this individual should not be making pagemove for the foreseeable future. His attitude towards the entire RM process evidenced above is frightening, particularly in light of the refusal to hear that anything could be wrong with his personal interpretation of the article title policy: Wikipedia is governed by consensus, and matters of project-wide importance require stakeholder input. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • But, you're the one advancing the argument that my interpretation is incorrect. Your !vote amounts to an attempt to shut me up so you can win the dispute you started with me above about this, which I remind you isn't a matter for discussion here anyway but belongs in an RFC, the very kind of stakeholder input you know is needed. You're the furthest thing from an uninvolved party in this, and the other side of the "battle" can't rationally accuse his opponent of battlegrounding. NB: I frequently use RM for both potentially controversial and unlikely to be controversial moves, so your "frightened" hyperbolic false claim about me and RM should be retracted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Sigh - Support - reluctantly. I am not happy with this. I don't LIKE doing this kind of things. But I can't notice any difference in the editor's discussion above. Can't see any I am sorry, it was a mistake. And I don't like moving back a lot of pages either. Hafspajen (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm conceding throughout that I do of course agree that there is presently a dispute about these moves. That's a matter for a discussion; whether someone disagrees with my interpretation of AT is also a matter for that discussion. I boldly moved some pages, some of which are being moved back, and a discussion will result. That's BRD actually happening. Why would say I'm "sorry" or claim I made a "mistake", when I simply took action upon a good-faith interpretation of policy, which to date only one person has made an argument against (and a non-convincing one that "X (sheep)" is more natural than "X sheep"? I've also conceded both above and below that any further page moves in these categories should clearly be by RM. You've come to an ANI that is accusing someone of bad faith, of violating policies or admin orders (not true - moves about MOS:CAPS issues are not related to moves predicated on AT compliance), and futher assuming in terrible faith that said editor will refuse to cooperate and will continue to moving such articles, and even after all of these issues have been addressed, you're only looking to see if I'm expressing some kind of shame for having simply made an incorrect assessment of whether consensus was as clear as I thought it was.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support move ban - Unless he asks first, each time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That doesn't even make sense. One either moves a page, or one "asks first" (goes through RM or some other formal process). A requirement to "ask first, each time" even in cases where this clearly is not necessary [cases more clear than these were!] would be a move ban.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I came here to say a few simple things:

• That the only thing that matters here is the non-collaborative behaviour of SMcCandlish
• That the moves may have been right or wrong, in accordance with policy or not, but that that is not relevant; they should, as McCandlish is perfectly well aware, have been proposed as move discussions
• That I've met rudeness before, and am confident that I will again before I die.

But I find that the situation is not so simple. My attention has been drawn to [[13]]. There it appears that SMcCandlish is under warning of Arbritration Enforcement for all pages relating to article titles, broadly construed (which at this point must include this one), and that he has been specifically advised to "to avoid commenting on contributor"; does not, for example, his description of Mendaliv as an "ostentatious firehose" now come under the scope of those sanctions?

I originally brought this here because pages were being moved against consensus. I now understand that the problem is more serious. SMcCandlish may for all I know once have been a productive editor, but it's clear that he has now lost his way, and completely lost sight of what we are here to do (build an encyclopaedia, right?), treating this instead as a sort of bare-knuckle arena. The degree of belligerence with which he came to this discussion is to some extent understandable, but quite excessive, and serves to confirm that those page moves were indeed not made in good faith. I suggest that he take a break from Wikipedia; and that if he is not prepared to do so of his own accord, that he be obliged to do so until he is able to demonstrate understanding of collegial editing and community consensus. Yes, I'm suggesting an indefinite block. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What consensus? Last I Looked, WP:AT is pretty clear on not using parenthetical disambiguation when natural will do, and not disambiguating when doing so is unnecessary. The burden is on you to prove that this policy somehow magically doesn't apply to sheep articles. Your belief that "the only thing that matters" is your bad-faith accusation of non-collaboration is telling.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

While I agree SMC's conduct here has been atrocious, I don't think it's severe enough to merit an indef when a move ban will take care of it. Should he not respect the move ban, or start playing games with RMs so as to impede stakeholder involvement, then we can start talking indefs. I think a temporary indef might be called for as well should SMC come on tonight and go straight back to controversial pagemoves, but I'm going to AGF that he'll try to work things out here first. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense in English. "Temporary" and "indef[inite]" are antonyms. There is no consensus for either of the punitive actions you'd like to see taken, only a blatantly canvassed dogpile of editors with a bone to pick against me personally and MOS generally, and there's an ongoing discussion about a negotiated close.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support move ban, as it seems that SMcCandlish will not otherwise follow the normal procedure - to request a move first if there is reason to assume that it may be controversial, and SMcCandlish seems not to understand that if a move is contested it has to be reverted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've already stated repeatedly that I would follow procedure, though. Doesn't this then constitute a bad-faith assumption about both my word and my future actions? Nowhere have I ever, in any form, stated anything at all like a belief that if a move is contested it should not be reverted. (At some RM, I think it may have been the one on horses, I objected to moves taking place while the RM was still open, and the closing admin admonished the mover for doing so). Please get your facts correct.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I only went thru a few of the reverted changes. I have to note it seems that more than few while reverted were not reverted to their original. It seems very reasonable that SMcCandlish did not expect any controversy. Over all the effort seemed good faith to me. It seems removing his autoconfirmed status has to be removed to physically ban him from moving articles. This would restrict more than his ability to move pages. If there is an actual need to take any action, I propose... Let's call it probation. SMcCandlish can not move any page for 3 months with out discussion. You can raise the time frame if you like. And if he violates that you can then talk about removing his autoconfirmed rights. There's no need to be unnecessarily punitive. If there actually is a disruption here there is no need to do more than what it would minimally take to end it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Serialjoepsycho, he wouldn't have his autoconfirmed bit removed. Keep in mind that a ban is different from a block. Basically, the move ban would be "Don't move pages." If he moves a page he gets blocked from editing. Honor system and all that. As to whether it's good faith, I have no doubt that it was. That said, there's an evident history of trouble with SMC and pagemoves, and he was on notice that future pagemoves of the same sort would be controversial. Assuming good faith, that means he at least negligently if not recklessly disregarded the existing controversy over his pagemoves. In light of the other matters brought up here, a move ban does not seem unreasonable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I was speaking off the basis of the language used early on in this post.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. There seems to be a case here of "I didn't hear that", and it doesn't seem likely to change without an official administrative decision. Softlavender (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What is it that you think I didn't hear?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support I missed the limit above. I suggest a limit be set or an appeal right after a certain predetermined tie period.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Whether SMcCandlish is correct or not is immaterial—the point is that without collaboration the community will degenerate as more energy is put into fighting and less into building the encyclopedia. No diff shows sanctionable behavior, but their overall approach is based on a belief that a uniform style (MOS) is of paramount importance, and contributors are to be bludgeoned rather than persuaded. For example, at Editor retention, SMcCandlish says "If some of them are threatening to leave because they are not getting their way, I refer them to WP:DIVA and WP:5THWHEEL, encourage them to take a WP:WIKIBREAK instead (it's quite refreshing) and come back when their egos have settled back down and they're ready to contribute without fighting for fighting's sake." (under "Itemized response to Tony Wills"). That approach damages the community, as does aggressive page moving. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've never once stated that style is of paramount importance. It's simply an area I have a lot of patience for. I don't feel you're in a position to castigate me for having a topical preference in my editing here. Characterizing me moving some pages to comply with the plain wording of WP:AT, in a category with chaotic naming that followed not convention at all, and for which there isn't even a sheep wikiproject trying to assert some made-up convention, as "aggressive" is an unsupportable personal attack.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Enough editors were driven away or put off editing the last time a project was annexed by the MOS battlegroup, we don't need any more, and the "we are right and if you don't like it then you can always leave" sentiments are not acceptable in a collaborative environment either. Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Another WP:BIRDS editor with a scapegoating bone to pick.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support I don't claim to be neutral on this, but SMC's single-minded MoS fiddling is incredibly disruptive. Although his changes to bird articles were done with due process, we have lost several editors as a result. He doesn't care about that, as his comments show, because he only cares about style, and doesn't give a toss if we lose voluntary content creators Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Unclean hands and WP:KETTLE. You waste few opportunities to get into it with me and other MOS regulars. I am not personally responsible for two editors deciding to quite after not prevailing in an RFC that their own supporters started, in response to an RM that I had nothing to do with. If there's an award for scapegoating, you're in the top round of nominees. PS: The accusation that I "single-mindedly" do nothing but style "fiddling" is a blatant lie as my editing stats demonstrate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support per comments of Black Kite (talk),Jimfbleak and others above.Smeat75 (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Too much self-righteous disruption, too little cooperative spirit. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Whom or what did moving some "X (sheep)" articles to "X sheep" disrupt? There isn't even a sheep wikiproject, and even if some dispute these moves (I observe that they do) that's a simple RM discussion, and the case Mendaliv made above for the basis of such a dispute succeeding is actually transparently weak (there is no way that "X (sheep)" is a more natural disambigation than "X sheep", except in a case where the name of the breed/variety already means sheep in some other language and would thus be redundant, and of course I made no such moves). Application of reasoning is not "self-righteousness", it's simply logic. Neither is defending against an enormous pile of false accusations and other miscarriage of ANI's purpose; that's just self-respect and an expectation of fair treatment. A claim of disruptive editing is an accusation of bad faith. Can you back yours up? Wasn't this vexatious ANI filing more of a problem, waste of time and generator of strife than some moves that can easily be undone if somehow they weren't the trivial WP:AT compliance cleanup they seemed to be? This ANI has certainly sucked up far more time and energy and made many more people unhappy than a calm RM discussion, or even simply administratively reverting the moves and telling me they should have gone to RM to begin with, which I actually agree with now; my assumption that they'd be uncontroversial was clearly incorrect. But that doesn't make it bad faith, stupid, or terrible.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment, I'm not sure if it's mentioned in the above, but two editors have offered a "negotiated close" on SMcCandlish's talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 21:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• I support the idea of a negotiated close. In spite of all the supports above, it is not clear to me in the absence of a proper sequence of diffs that SMcCandlish has done anything wrong or that we have "lost several editors as a result". I go further and suggest the closer disregard such comments where they are unsupported by diffs. The idea of an indefinite block for this user is quite ludicrous. --John (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • John, I should clarify, I don't think anybody's proposing a block: the proposal is considering a simple pagemove ban. And really, while I would be fine with a negotiated outcome, unless that outcome involves SMC agreeing to use RM for all multipage moves for the foreseeable future, I don't think it's going to be accepted by the emerging consensus here. And frankly, this isn't conduct that can simply be summed up in diffs: it involves too many actions. You have to actually look at the logs and see the sheer number of controversial moves being made. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • John, can you please point out exactly where someone has proposed an indef block on this user? I'd like to see the reasoning and I can't find the comment. Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 01:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The comment by Justlettersandnumbers at 21:11, 10 July 2014 mentions "I'm suggesting an indefinite block" (after a well-reasoned statement with the suggestion of a wikibreak), however the proposal is for an indefinite page move ban which I think you started at 20:06, 10 July 2014. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It's not the first time; see diff below. It's part of a long series of attacks against me personally and against MOS/AT regulars in general. Virtually every time someone has a complaint to raise about me, some style partisan from one wikiproject or another will rush to "indefinite block" or "topic ban" demands.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Clarfied 17:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Any chance of some self-reflection? Are all the editors recommending a move ban just misguided? On reflection, aren't comments like "I refer them to WP:DIVA and WP:5THWHEEL" (diff) likely to damage the community? Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Well of course I'm self-reflecting. I said in the process outlining at my talk page where I might go with a negotiated close that I certainly concede that issues have been raised about the moves and that reasonable people can disagree. I don't have to agree with the rationales behind those concerns to agree that people can legitimately question them. It's a discussion to have, the D in BRD, about why they think that AT doesn't apply to these articles, or that my interpretation of that policy is wrong, or whatever. I cited, in a totally different discussion that has nothing to do with these page moves, and only coincidentally has article naming (of wild species, which have nothing to do with domestic breeds). It's not germane to this discussion to dig up and drag in every potential "transgression" of mine that you can find, regardless what context it comes from. Regardless, if you think those essays are harmful to the community and that the emotional hostage-taking they address are behaviors that are permissible or don't really exist, then they should be taken WP:MFD; it's not appropriate to contemplate punitive action against me or anyone else for citing those essays in response to precisely the behavior they were written to address.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I was especially concerned by User:leak's unsubstantiated comment. Perhaps this user should provide evidence, withdraw the allegation that we have "lost several editors as a result", or face a sanction of some sort. We don't work like this. --John (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Depends how you define "several" I guess, but Natureguy1980, Chuunen Baka and Sabine's Sunbird are three editors who've resigned specifically citing this issue as the reason, for starters. 80.43.195.5 (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

John neglected to say that he has threatened to block me if I don't apologise to the great leader for my comments above, despite the clear evidence of said leader driving editors away from at least one project (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#So long, and thanks for all the fish and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#I'm out). Unfortunately, this is typical MoS bullying as a substitute for reasoned debate. I'll probably be blocked for this post too (or he will remove it, which he has done before when I've criticised his hero) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that this is Jimfbleak being warned against accusations and other attacks, and repeating the attack in the course of refusing to abide by the warning.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Also this reason for leaving Wikipedia was suppressed by John, who unaccountably can't find any evidence that people have been leaving because of McCandlish... not suprised when he's hiding it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Could I ask other admins to look at the threat from John referred to? I have suggested that you will want to provide evidence for the allegation you made here, or else withdraw it and apologise. Will you do so please? Could you also refrain from making similar unsupported allegations in the future, especially in such an area as AN/I; such comments are especially unhelpful and I have been known to block on sight for them. I shall certainly do so if you repeat this behaviour, or if you fail to comply with my request above. I think that is really shocking, such bullying from an admin seems totally unacceptable to me. John is the one who should withdraw his comment and apologise or face a sanction.Smeat75 (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a threat, it's a WP:ARBATC warning. ARBCOM has already decided (multiple times) that such warnings cannot be undone, since, rationally speaking, no one can be "unwarned" of something.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75 the issue has been a long-running capitalisation on bird name debate which flared up this year and culminated in a vote here. Scroll down to the "oppose" comments and note how many demands/replies/comments each attracted. Also see Wikipedia_talk:BIRDS#So_long.2C_and_thanks_for_all_the_fish and Wikipedia_talk:BIRDS#I.27m_out. I can't understand why John says he can't see anything here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@John: This is patent witch-hunt. The "lost several editors as a result" nonsense is an attempt to blame me individually, personally and solely for a trio of editors (User:Sabine's Sunbird, who actually "quit" over a year ago citing multiple reasons but still posts still posts insults and more reasoned material, and the largely inactive User:NatureGuy1980, and User:Chuunen Baka) from WP:BIRDS loudly declaring an intention to resign as a result (at least partially) of the decapitalization of bird species common names RfC going against them. That RfC was begun by a pro-capitalization admin, and closed (against capitalization) by a pro-capitalization admin. The RfC came about because of an RM to de-capitalize bird common names in article titles, an RM in which I did not participate at all, nor did many if any MOS regulars, followed by an MR challenging it, in which I was only a late-coming minor commenter. I did participate heavily in the RfC, because this issue had dragged on and on and on for approximately 9 years, and needed resolution. I provided a lot of logic and policy based arguments, and most importantly actual reliable sourcing. So, Jimfbleak's claim is a patently false personal attack, which violates the discretionary sanctions covering MOS/AT disputes. That editor in particular is a frequent personal critic of me especially, and of MOS and its regular editors in general; his statement is essentially wikipolitical activism, and does not address this actual ANI case's facts in any way. Several other respondents here are coming with similar exaggerated claims, false assumption, and accusations of bad faith (User:Montanabw in particular; see his overreactive and exceedingly hostile WP:OWN-laden messages on my talk page last month and last year). The cascade of pro-sanctioning !votes (few of them by admins) includes many editors from wikiprojects that routinely conflict with MOS; they're being led here to dog-pile me. [see proof of vote-stacking canvassing below]. Their posts here are not responsive to the alleged issues raised by the move-related facts at issue in this discussion, they're "damn we hate MOS and that SMcCandlish guy" demonizing, dragging into this everything they can think of that ever vaguely irritated them about me and MOS. I was gone for almost a year, and essentially nothing of note related to any of the disputes mentioned here changed at MOS or with regard to how it's applied. I'm simply being scapegoated now, as I was a year ago when I decided to take a long break, to demonstrate that I'm not some kind of MOS conspiratorial overlord. I have in fact demonstrated that. MOS is written by the editor pool in the community who care to write it; period. I'm happy to consider some kind of negotiated compromise, but it can't have any of this sort of pitchforks and torches stuff in it. Stick to the actual facts.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you any proof, such as diffs, to support your serious allegation that people are "being led" here? I suggest that your response here, as well as your response at your user talk page where you agree to a negotiated close... but only if what you agree to has no enforcement mechanism... is evidence that there is indeed a problem with your behavior. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. here is Montanabw from the horse project canvassing the birds project, which he knows is stocked to the ceiling with people who scapegoat me personally for the bird common names decapitalization. That took THIRTY SECONDS to find. Haven't looked further because I'm already running late for meatspace things I have to attend to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

That's called "notification" not canvassing. 'Nuff said. Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to actually read WP:CANVASS: "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement). Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support page move ban. Unfortunately this has stepped over into disruptive territory now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support page move ban. Dotting is and crossing ts is lovely - until it becomes an obsession that hurts. If we ever lose a good, expert editor, and their potential contributions because of an arcane clerical argument then the world is mad. This happens far too much here. The world doesn't care how Yoghurt is spelled - it cares whether the article it gets from its Google search is good. This kind of crap is so damaging - and the sad thing is that those causing it genuinely believe they do what they do to improve this place. We need to stop this happening. Begoon ^talk 17:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • When have I taken any position on yogurt vs. yoghurt? Tarring me with the brush of an ENGVAR dispute that involved ARBCOM sanctions is an red herring/straw man and an ad hominem. Who has been "hurt" by my moving some pages from the form "X (sheep)" to "X sheep", the moves at issue here? You're !voting to sanction me for the results of an birds-related RFC that was closed against a wiiproejct's wishes and which has nothing to do with how to disambiguate sheep names in article titles!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support a page move ban, unfortunately. User cannot currently be trusted with this. GiantSnowman 17:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Unclean hands again. GiantSnowman is another editor who frequently gets into disputes with MOS editors in general and me personally to advance wikiproject LOCALCONSENSUS stuff against wider guidelines (see, e.g., WT:MOSICONS and his failed putsch to permit willy-nilly use of flag icons all over the place in sports, especially association football, articles). Numerous respondents here are seeking to censure me not for any violation of move policy but to punitively restrain a debate oponent in other, unrelated content disputes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite page move ban. In Talk:American_Paint_Horse#Requested_moves many editors were alarmed about the mass-moves of animal articles, including articles. And Candish says "No one notified me of any dispute about dog-related articles,"??? Are you kidding me? And don't you remember the discussions about domestic breeds in WT:MOS. This is total blindness to the objections of other editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Unclean hands again; see previous ANI and other disputes over MOS and Naval's disruptive editing with regard thereto.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• SMcCandlish discussed dog breeds in a March/April discussion, and I had a discussion with him about dog/goat/sheep breeds back in April. Dog and cat breeds were discussed in WT:MOS Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_127 back in February 2012 while discussing bird capitalization, discussions where SMcCandlish participated actively and talked about dog capitalization. How could he consider uncontroversial to alter the capitalization of all those breed articles, even it was not a full decapitalization. And without warning anyone about his intentions, or discussing the general concept. Now he's moved ~150 sheep articles without any warning or communication with the wikiprojects listed on their talk pages? Didn't he think that all those editors could get a bit upset? Didn't he learn any lesson from the fights with the bird wikiproject? How can I trust him with the ability to make massive page moves, after this sort of things? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • Discussions unrelated to disambiguation, which is what these sheep moves at issue were above. Please stay on topic. The discussions you link to are about capitalization. Note that in these discussions I've strongly dissuaded a renewed capitalization vs. lower case fight. Hardly the actions of someone "obsessed" with such matters as at least two have accused me of here (yet another personal attack).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Update: Here's an example of what I'm talking about. It's blatant personal attack and bad-faith accusation by Jimfbleak, an exercise is sheer character assassination, made in a talk page populated by plenty of admins, zero of whom ever, ever do anything to rein this sort of thing at that page, which is a quite common occurrence (and most frequently at my expense personally). It's as if all civility, collegiality and other behavioral rules are suspended at WT:BIRDS, as long as it's MOS/AT regulars who are being savaged. Yet we're supposed to take Jimfbleak's !vote here at face value, and all of the "me too" pile-ons that agree with it? Note that this was not some momentary lapse of reason; Jimflbleak massaged this post of his 6 times or so, over the course of more than an hours, and had more than enough opportunity to retract or even moderate it.

  Here's an example of the sort of irrational, anti-MOS hate-and-conspiracy mongering regularly going on without any repercussions for anyone but those being attacked: " I think some of the most zealous style-over-substance supporters may well be long-term detractors of Wikipedia whose main aim is perhaps to destroy the long-term editor-base.". I couldn't make this stuff up. There's a lot more of this stuff, and it has been going on for over two years; this is just what I can copy paste in a couple of minutes befoe I have to get on the road.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Update, as I stated below, in light of SMcCandlish's unrepentant response here, I ask the community to impose a strict page-move ban on SMcC and set a timeframe for review at a later date (say six or twelve months). Dreadstar ☥ 20:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support page move ban (If I'm voting twice, strike whatever I favored before and keep this vote) Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As noted above, Montanabw has unclean hands in this, frequently attacks me with bad faith accusations and histrionic, OWNy rants, canvassed in this proceeding, and takes generally anti-MOS wikipolitical stances. He's attempting to win a much broader content editing dispute by manipulating ANI into muzzling opponents. Also, even the bringer of this ANI case has not called for any such strict bans, only for voluntary agreements, and this is the negotiated close under discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

A negotiated close, an indefinite block?

As Johnuniq rightly points out, I came here to ask for a halt to page moves by SMcCandlish, for which I see that there now appears to be an overwhelming consensus. Based on his behaviour here, I subsequently mentioned the possibility of an enforced wikibreak until SMcCandlish can show that he understands, and wishes to edit in accordance with, our basic principles of co-operation and collaboration. John dismisses that suggestion as "ludicrous"; I don't think it is. It's certainly a very unattractive possible outcome, and one that I would be very keen to avoid if at all possible, but I think the reasons for considering it need to be explored.

I believe that SMcCandlish has lost his way in this project:

• instead of co-operating with other editors and giving their arguments equal weight to his own, he adopts (everywhere I've seen him in action, which surely is not everywhere he has edited) the same arrogant, blustering, hectoring and discourteous behaviour that he has shown on this page
• he has remarkable energy and tenacity, and uses those qualities to beat down other editors with innumerable walls of text: in the latest bird names discussion, which Jimfbleak describes as "due process", the string "— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢" occurs 104 times (if I've counted right), exactly twice as often as the signature of Andrewa; the sockpuppet Mama metal modal seems to be next, with 24 posts; several editors seem to be around 15–17; that's not due process, it's filibustering, argument by exhaustion
• looking further up this page I see applied to this editor the words (or phrases) disruptive, self-righteous, battleground, battlegroup, bludgeoning, refusal to hear, crusade; I do not, to my regret, find the words valuable, outstanding, collaborative, productive, good, useful, helpful or even "content"
• I unquestioningly accept that he has made valuable edits here; that I haven't seen them doesn't matter – he has almost 90,000 edits and I'm not going to go through them all; I'd be very pleased if he would go back to making more of them, but I believe it's time for the rest of this circus to come to an end

There's been talk of a negotiated close to this. In my view that'd be far preferable to any sort of community sanction. I very tentatively suggest, for comment from others, a possible basis for such a close:

• SMcCandlish acknowledges that he understands that collegial co-operation and collaboration between editors is the foundation, mechanism and driving force of this project
• he voluntarily undertakes to be unfailingly courteous and respectful in his interaction with other editors, and recognises that their opinions may be different from his, but may also be equally valid and equally strongly held
• he voluntarily agrees not to move any page whatsoever, without exception
• he voluntarily undertakes to limit his participation in requests for comment and move requests to one post of reasonable length

The only thing there that is not a routine part of the normal everyday behaviour of most editors is the restriction on page moves, and I think, given the consensus above, that that is pretty much inevitable at this point anyway. If SMcCandlish does not, as I really hope he will, find himself able to agree to the above, then, "ludicrous" or not, those who have to think about such things should probably seriously consider whether his freedom to edit should be suspended. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Question: How or why is either of those options better or more reliable than a simple page-move ban, which the community has endorsed above? It doesn't seem from this entire discussion that the editor shows any sign of either changing on the page-move front or taking a wikibreak, so a simple ban on that specific behavior would eliminate the problem without forcing him to make a decision. Of course, if the problem extends beyond merely page-moves to include unrelated incivility, that's another matter, but not the subject of this particluar ANI. Softlavender (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• • "The community" hasn't endorsed anything. As I already demonstrated, many of the !votes above were canvassed by Montanbw advertising this ANI case to a wikiproject stocked with editors who unreasonably blame me personally for their failure to carry the day in an RfC that their own people started and which was closed against them, on the merits of the debate, by one of their own admin supporters. They frequently personally attack me by name, and have been doing so for over two years, and even more frequently cast aspersions and even advance anti-Wikipedia conspiracy theories against MOS/AT regulars as a class. I've provided some diffs of this stuff already, and can give dozens more if you like.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: While this proposal reflects the patience and respect that the best wikipedia editors exhibit, I think it would be impossible to enforce: SMC does whatever he wants no matter who expresses opposition and a move ban would allow him to actually contribute to articles instead of making mass changes. I do think that he needs to be restricted to ONE comment at RfC and RM as well, though; that's a solid idea. If he does acknowledge the above and say he will voluntarily comply, I will be shocked, but anything's possible. Montanabw^(talk) 23:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That's unsupportable bad-faith accusation and personal attack (as usual from this editor). Notice how, unrelated to anything under discussion here, he wants to censor me in other ways. Given that my arguments have been effective in MOS debates in the past that concluded in favor of lower-case decisions that this editor fears might also be extended to breed names, this isn't surprising. But this isn't about capitalization, or older MOS-related RMs and RfCs. This is like me being in court for an alleged traffic and someone interrupting the proceedings to start a property line dispute against me in hopes that the judge just doesn't like me and will handily go along with him.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• No. A move ban is enough. If he violates it or engages in disruption not covered by the move ban, we can talk then. This subthread is frankly the equivalent of spiking the ball. It's ill-considered and unnecessary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• I'll consider a negotiated close, of course But the above one-side list is farcical. A move ban is not justifiable under any policy-based rationale, and Justlettersandnumbers and co. are going to have to compromise as well; their demands are self-righteous, CYA, vindictive, and proceed from numerous false bases, and don't even stick to the topic at hand. For starters, the first two of the above bullet points would have to be mutual, and Justlettersandnumbers and various other frequently MOS-conflicting parties here could already have been sanctioned under the MOS/AT discretionary sanctions for their firehose of bad-faith assumptions and personal attacks against me as it is (not just on this page). The third point is absurd. So is the fourth, and has jack to do with page moves. Stop trying to shoe-horn in a laundry list of "censor and impede the editing of that SMcCandlish guy as much as possible" nonsense. You don't see me actually insisting any longer that you be boomerang sanctioned much less AE discretionary-sanctioned on top of that. I've never taken any of these or similar parties to AE, no matter how nasty and accusatory their commentary gets. That's called me taking a deep breath and a step toward the collegiality you say you want, while at the same time you're going on a ridiculously extreme offensive. PS: I'm extremely busy right now; first time I've logged in in days.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block, massive over-reaction. GiantSnowman 17:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block, obviously - "attempting to spike the ball" was a good description of this. For shame. Begoon ^talk 17:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, but in light of SMcCandlish's unrepentant response here, I ask the community to impose a strict page-move ban on SMcC and set a timeframe for review at a later date (say six or twelve months). Dreadstar ☥ 20:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's get this straight: One side has proposed an extreme set of deamnds above, and simply for the sin of discussing opposite demands on my own talk page, you want to pillory me? I don't think you understand how compromise and negotiation work. One does not reach a middle ground both sides can live with if one side lays out what they want and the other side is threatened with punitive action for laying out their side as well. That was a draft, immediate, and hurried response, in response to people opening a discussion about what should be drafted. It was not my final statement on the matter. Your attempt to use this userspace drafting process against me smacks of wikistalking.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block but strongly support page move ban, and still think a restriction on number of comments should be considered. SMC really doesn't get it. Montanabw^(talk) 22:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The user in question appears to be headed down the same road as Betacommand. The difference, and the sad part, is that Betacommand was warring over something that matters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • That's the fallacy of assuming your proposition (that style and naming matters do not actually matter) before you've proven it. If they don't matter, just take WP:AT, the naming conventions guidelines, and all the MOS pages to MFD, and I'm sure you'll prevail there in having them deleted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • That's the fallacy of assuming that nitpicky naming conventions matter to either the Wikimedia foundation and/or the general public. The general public might not care about the issue of non-free-content either, but the foundation does. It's one of the short list of items that actually have potential to get Wikipedia in legal trouble. Styles of names and such are not on that list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block. I'm not sure that this isn't a bit of a red herring at this stage, the move sanction should be sufficient if SMC is prepared to accept it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Update: Several have offered, at my talk page, to help/moderate a negotiated close. I'm amenable to this, though I suppose it should take place here. Negotiation is a two-way street, however. I also have to observe:

  A) A provably vote-stacked ANI case is not a "community consensus", especially when a large proportion of the !votes come from editors with unclean hands, who have been involved in repeated disputes with me personally and against MOS being applied to "their" articles generally. It's the exact opposite of a community consensus, and is an attempt to trick ANI into WP:WINNING a policy and content dispute for them by admin noticeboard fiat.

  B) No self-respecting, rational adult can be expected to kowtow to the kind of dog-piled attacks, false accusations and incivility as the above is laced with, and the debates in the background are littered with. Most people won't do this unless their very livelihoods are on the line (and many won't even then), so expecting a volunteer to do so is untenable. The idea that I'm to be punitively censored, not because of any actual clear policy violations, but simply because I'm angry at my treatment here and declining to shove my nose up a long line of backsides, even after conceding that the moves are now clearly controversial and that of course I won't move more such articles, is completely preposterous.

  C) A large number of the above comments are attempts not to solve any ongoing problem (there isn't one – I say it now for the third time that the actual issue here is moot to begin with, as there are no more breed articles I would move, since sheep were the last category in which may articles had WP:AT problems to address, even if I weren't already clear that there's a dispute about the moves anyway). Rather, they are demands by MOS/AT debate partisans to vindictively stick it to me, for supposed transgressions many of which date to months or years ago and have nothing to do with moving breed articles, or simply for having disagreed with them in the past, and often prevailed in disputes they're still sore about.

  D) Non-admins cannot impose sanctions. And non-admins cannot close any discussion that's ongoing or not clearly completely non-controversial (see WP:Non-admin closure). User:Mdann52 should probably have this explained to them by an actual admin. I've reverted his bogus closure attempt, and am drafting a counter-proposal to Justlettersandnumbers's, above.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Non-admins make up the majority of the community of editors and the community can certainly impose sanctions. We only need admins to enforce them. When this discussion imposes a page-move ban - and it will - the sanction will carry the weight of the community, not of any admin. --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

Per WP:Compromise, I'll try in good faith to meet Justlettersandnumbers half-way, and drop my (and discourage others') call for WP:BOOMERANG or WP:AC/DS consequences with regard to that or any other editor involved here (provided that the attacks and bad faith accusations actually do stop; Jimfbleak's most recent behavior here in repeating attacks after being warned to stop engaging in them is not a good sign). I'll even look to proposing some steps to getting us well-past this entire debate into the territory of future conflict prevention. @EdJohnston, John, and Jenks24: As the admins who approached me about this negotiated close on my talk page, please let me know if you think these three ideas below are viable. They get at the heart of the bullet points I outlined at my own talk page in our discussion there, while also addressing the actual reasonable aspects of Justlettersandnumbers's own points, and the valid concerns raised here by others (as distinguished from the various invalid ones). They could be more formally drafted as one-liners, but that's perhaps something one of you should do.

• I don't have any problem with a voluntary 3-month moratorium on breed-related moves, provides the relevant wikiprojects also understand that more such moves would be controversial and requires WP:RM. Justlettersandnumbers, Jimfbleak Montanabw, Shyamal, Enric Naval, Mendaliv, Black Kite, Johnuniq, Casliber and other breed/agriculture/biology editors (and others with, e.g., sports wikiproject bones to pick with MOS, e.g. Johnu) who are here seeking my hide, and the wikiprojects they presume to try to speak for, cannot insist, against WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, on making up their own "naming conventions" or other style "rules" that conflict with WP:AT and WP:MOS (not with regard to animals or sports or anything else). Even if someone doesn't agree they actually conflict, it's clear that I and many other MOS/AT regulars are certain that they do, or these protracted debates would not happen (nor usually close in favor of MOS/AT, by the way). Ergo, any such moves by anyone at this point would clearly be controversial. There is zero evidence of any kind of my use of moves in general to be problematic, so this moratorium does not apply outside this topic category. Three months is plenty long enough to conduct the RMs, RFCs and/or other consensus-building procedures needed to clean up these categories. After that point, no moratorium would serve any purpose, and might impede routine, non-controversial moves. If it does take longer than three months, this is probably indicative of problems that, finally, need to be addressed at RFARB, with regard to LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:OWN policies being skirted by certain wikiprojects.
• Of course I have no problem with a mutual agreement to abide by civility, AGF and related rules that engender collegial collaboration, and to recognize that reasonable people can disagree. All parties to this debate are at this point clearly on notice of WP:ARBATC and its discretionary sanctions, and many have unclean hands in this case due to their protracted participation in related debates. Several parties to this ANI case have transgressed CIVIL and AGF and ARBATC with regard to me and to MOS/AT regulars as a class, on a repeat basis, and this has to stop. If the one-sided bashing does not cease, then the good faith major contributors to MOS/AT are going to be left with little choise but to finally start making AE requests to have ARBATC administratively enforced, to put a stop to the BATTLEGROUND-mentality "MOS-bashing" that's been ongoing for some time. Note, however, that WP:CIVILITY does not require sweetness nor overweening courteousness; this is not kindergarten nor the court of Louix XIV. See also WP:AUTIE, which I'd bet almost no one in this debate has ever read. Some of the wording in Justlettersandnumbers' intro and original first two bulletpoints amounts to an attempt to legislate temperament and writing style, and dictate who can rebut arguments that no one else bothered to fact-checked. Imagine applying that latter idea to actual article writing!
• I and the other side will agree that how to name breed articles is a matter for the community to decide in one or more well-advertised, centrally located RFCs at the appropriate policypage[s], with relevant wikiprojects, Village Pump and WP:CENT notified, and that wikiproject-level attempts to impose conflicting would-be rules, or to repeatedly fight out disparate naming ideas in a long series of contradictory RM cases is unhelpful.

I now have a long busy Monday ahead of me (it's about 10am my time), and will not be back to review any more of this until tonight or tomorrow. I trust that the admin's I've pinged on this prevent any more bogus closures while this is still being negotiated. PS: Do we even need to bother dismissing the idea that I should be forced to participate less because I'm seen more in debates that Justlettersandnumbers wishes his side had one, an in which I was the #1 source of reliably sourced facts? Of course I show up that (again not relevant here) bird capitalization debate, because virtually no one else was bothering to fact-check and debunk the claims made by the other side.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: that's yet another wall of text simply intended to try to wriggle out of the straightforward page move ban needed to protect the encyclopedia, supported by at least 17 editors above, with nothing substantial in the way of opposition. It's worth noting that there's been no attempt by SMC to address the problems outlined above, and the regular references to "the other side" show that his BATTLEGROUND mentality hasn't altered a jot. --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Re-opened

Protonk, if you are going to close something here, you need to assess consensus. There is no consensus for SMCandlish to voluntarily not move pages 'in the topic area'. Your first close was perfectly reasonable. There is *clear* consensus above SMcCandlish is to be banned from 'page moves'. Not 'page moves in a specific topic', just page moves in general. Altering your close as you have done vastly distorts the meaning (and the scope) and none of the support voters above placed limits on the page moves he was to be banned from, simply because he has caused issues in multiple topic areas. If SMcCandlish wishes to offer to voluntarily step away from ALL page moves for 3 months, then that offer is one I will accept. No less. And that offer needs to be made *here* where the community can discuss it and see if they want to take him up on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Aside from the limitation of the topic area, there's no material difference in the effect of a voluntary agreement to not move pages and a proscription against doing so. Violating either would result in a block. If you want to slap his pee-pee and make it mandatory despite his willingness to agree to a voluntary restriction (Which included none of the problematic elements of the "negotiated close" above, then I guess that's your prerogative. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (EC) There is however a big difference between 'page moves in the topic area' and 'page moves'. If you cant see the difference in that, you should not be closing discussions based on private discussion you had with him on his talk page. That is not how consensus works. Once it has gone to community involvement you dont supervote your preferred close after the fact! Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support a full page-move ban on SMcCandlish either voluntarily or by the clear consensus here. Honestly, I think the ban should be for a period of six to twelve months, with review at that time; but I won't fight a three month ban if the community supports it. To me, this vague 'topic area ban" agreement is insufficient, unclear and difficult to enforce. Dreadstar ☥ 22:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Agree with the comments above by Only in death does duty end and Dreadstar. There was massive support for a ban on page moves in the discussion, not a backroom deal.Smeat75 (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. The opening poster stated "I'd like to propose that SMcCandlish be deprived of the right to move pages until and unless he/she can clearly demonstrate understanding of what collaborative editing is supposed to mean". There follows 17 !votes of "support"/"strong support"/support page move ban" and no opposes. The consensus here is clear: a ban on moving any pages is agreed, There is probably consensus that the duration should be indefinite, until SMcCandlish can convince the community that the problems reported will not recur. Do you want me to close it or shall I ask an admin to do so? --RexxS (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Edit conflicted while editing the last section. I'll strike as moot. --RexxS (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Accepted: I don't have a problem with a voluntary agreement to not move pages at all for three months, as User:Only_in_death demands, if that'll put this dispute to rest. While there's no behavioral difference between a voluntary and imposed move ban, there's a major assumption of bad faith inherent in the latter, as if I'm insane, evil and/or stupid and would go right back to moving such pages for the same sorts of reasons again unless restrained at gunpoint. I openly acknowledge the legitimate issues raised by uninvolved commentators above. I nevertheless strongly dispute that the blatantly canvassed responses above constitute an actual consensus on anything, as far too many of them are !votes by editors personally involved rancorously in previous style and naming disputes with me, making in many cases unsupportable accusations, and dredging up irrelevant issues. ANI, like other consensus processes, is not a head-count vote, but a discussion in which the merits of arguments and why they're being made have to be weighed. But I can see that no one is willing to look at the problems inherent in vote-stacking in my case, so let's just get this over with and go back to something more productive. Ironically, I was just improving some biology articles, after opening a measured discussion at WT:AT about actually coming to consensus on what to do with breed article disambiguation (you know, the D in BRD that commenters above say they want to happen but did nothing to actually start?) when this came back up again. I've already repeatedly acknowledged that the moves did turn out to be controversial in ways I did not expect and that this was an error on my part, and that I wouldn't be making more such moves. I'm skeptical that pushing this to include all page moves, when I've only had concerns raised any time in recent memory about breed-related page moves, is so vital that it needed this sort of wheelwarring, but whatever. PS: Dreadstar offers no explanation for how a limitation of the ban to breed articles is in any way "vague"; indeed, Only_in_death's and others' complaint is that they feel it's too specific, which is the exact opposite.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've read your convoluted walls of text and "Oh, I accidentally moved five hundred pages of breed-related articles, oh, it was voluntary anyway, not mandated." That kind of vague. And you really need to review WP:WHEEL, another mis-assumption on your part. Dreadstar ☥ 00:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• And now it's moved here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#ANI_wheelwarring_shenanigans. Dreadstar ☥ 00:21, 16 July 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:Masum Ibn Musa

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.

---

Masum Ibn Musa (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) was blocked almost 3 months and 20 days ago for massive copyright violation. I myself judged his contributions and found out that it was true. But I think he should get at least one last chance. He has done lots of good and constructive works in Bengali Wiki. See his Global Account Information for proof. Moreover he is one of the trusted user at that wiki. After seeing his contributions there I think now he knows about copyright violation fully and if he gets a chance he won't make this kind of mistake again. Finally if B.T.Clown can get more than 4 chances for nothing I think This guy deserves at least one chance. So I'm requesting for an unblock for Masum Ibn Musa. Thank you.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 12:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) From what I can see, he has not made any unblock requests. If he were to disavow copyright infringement and make a strong case to the reviewing admin, it is highly likely he could be given another opportunity to contribute. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 13:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Solarra: he's from Bangladesh and I've contact with him through facebook. Recently he asked me whether I could do anything for him at this wiki. After seeing everything at least I think that he should be given a chance. He surely wants to be unblocked.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Pratyya: From what I understand, he is the only one that can request the unblock. He still has talk page access so he can either put in the unblock request there or by email. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 13:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well @Solarra: using Pratyya to ping me won't work. Anyway I'll ask him to make a request shortly. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

First step is for that user to contact Diannaa, who made the block. This can be done by pinging her from their talk page or making the request and you use her talk page to make her aware of the discussion after the request. If she is unwilling to unblock herself, then an unblock template should be used on the user's talk page. If it comes down to a community decision, it should be raised at WP:AN rather than here, but they need to try the other methods first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason he was blocked a second time is because the first thing he did after his unblock was re-create the article Aditi Mohsin, using copyright materials. I noticed this because I had worked on his copyright investigation, and the link for the article (which I had deleted) changed from red back to blue. We had to re-open the case page and investigate a further 73 articles. Of these, fourteen had copyright violations. In other words, in the time in between the two blocks, twenty per cent of his contributions were copyright violations. The user needs to make the unblock request himself by placing an unblock template on his talk page. He needs to demonstrate that he thoroughly understands copyright law and that we won't see a repeat of the previous problems. The number of future copyright violations needs to be zero. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

User posted an unblock request, I pinged Diannaa. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 16:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I havew unblocked the user, with a notice there will be zero tolerance for future copyright violations. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I added a note as well. I think Diannaa has been very generous in the unblock. Hopefully good things will come of it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

As the person who originally raised these concerns, just a note that I am confident Diannaa will keep a close enough eye on things to forestall any further problems requiring significant clean-up work. So it's a no-lose situation. Onwards and upwards! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive Editing of BLP's

User:Veto118 continues to add unsourced, contentious statements to political BLP's despite repeated warnings.

Warnings: 1 2 3 4

Most recent unsourced, contentious edit: [14]CFredkin (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I see a mix of problematic/unsourced edits and reasonable (I didn't investigate the sourcing) sourced edits to BLPs. This gives me a sense that if someone were to talk to them like a human about the specific problems and explain in plain english the expectations for BLPs, we might have some success. I'll hang off on doing so until some other folks have commented or the problematic edits continue, but I'd prefer that as a first step. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how the issue can be described more clearly on the user's talk page. Multiple editors have attempted to engage. So far, the user has declined to engage there or on any other Talk page.CFredkin (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing deleted comments I don't see anything other than the results of editors hitting a button in twinkle, resulting in an automatically generated warning and a link to policy. What I'm suggesting is that someone sit down and write a real explanation of the problem and a path for the editor to resolve that problem. Templates are fine and all that, but it's folly to think that the solution to "this editor isn't getting the message" is to assume only that the editor is the problem, not the message. For editors who can be productive members of the community we shouldn't piss that opportunity away in order to reinforce the sufficiency of communication by template. Protonk (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is based on a template, the following message seems to me to neutrally describe the issue and provide a straightforward way for the user to get more information. The fact that they are providing sources for some of their edits, tells me that they know how to provide citations. They are just choosing not to in many cases. If you feel that there's a better way to address this, can you please take a crack at doing so?

"Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Tim Johnson (U.S. Senator). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article."CFredkin (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Those templated messages are so effective at communication it's a wonder the community developed a longstanding practice against doing so! Essay or not, it's relatively standard practice to engage in discussion with fellow editors rather than festooning their page with the same message over and over again. That we don't tend to do so for new editors is a mix of practicality (in many, many cases, templated warnings are sufficient or the effort to write a personalized message is prohibitive given the volume of work regular editors face) and insularity. Regardless of the efficacy or fairness issues inherent to exclusively communicating with new editors via semi-automated messages when faced with the situation where the messages provably haven't worked we should at least imagine the possibility that the message itself is insufficient. In many cases (not saying that's what's happening here), new users dismiss warnings as boilerplate or bot-generated spam (c.f. this paper, and others). I'm happy to leave a message for the editor on their talk page. I plan to do so after waiting a bit to see if they respond at AN/I or if some other issue crops up which might make such an effort pointless. Protonk (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@CFredkin: Note left. They haven't edited since the report above so we'll have to wait and see what the outcome is. Protonk (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Nicely stated. Thanks for doing that.CFredkin (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but isn't the username a violation of policy against promotional names? I'm not sure what it's referring to (probably some congressional bill or the like) but if someone had a username of "Pass118" or "VetoCyberSecurityBill" in the news now or whatever political idea I could come up with, I'd question it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Would an admin please block this user until they acknowledge that they understand and will follow out BLP policy? They have ignored all attempts to get them to stop adding contentious content to BLPs and they're causing widespread damage.- MrX 02:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk: He's back.....CFredkin (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well. It was worth a shot. Protonk (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Since Veto118 has continued their disruption without responding to the concerns raised by others, I've blocked the account indefinitely. Mike V • Talk 03:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Protonk (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Review of User:Walter Görlitz's behaviour

I've never done this before...

This editor has a long history of edit warring, which has led to 10 blocks in total, 4 of which have been this year, and one of which only expired recently. I bring this behaviour up here because it appears to be a long-lasting pattern of behaviour that has not stopped despite blocks. I also bring it up here because his last request for unblocking was supported by User:SW3 5DL with the justification that his edit warring was 'in defence of the wiki'. Whilst I am all for ignoring the rules in some circumstances, persistently doing so rather undermines their existence. I would not feel comfortable performing any block without outside views.

This will be a brief (in context) summary of recent edit wars and the behaviour surrounding them. I have no doubt that if anybody went further back they would find more. These are mostly not within 24 hours of each other. Some began before his latest block and have just started again afterwards.

I will put this caveat on this whole report.

• I am aware it takes two people to create an edit war, and others should also be reviewed and dealt with
• I am aware that many of these reverts are done for very good reasons. This is simply to do with the flagrant disregard for the rules

UEFA Euro 2012 4 reverts of same IP from 9th to 11th of July History

• Asked IP address for a discussion on the matter and did not receive one. Took to reverting without discussion with any other parties as the solution.
• In February he had told another editor that it "doesn't matter what you think" when they tried to engage him in discussion on the matter.

Thomas Dooley 3 reverts from 5th July to 11th July of IP 2001:558:6020:1A8:2062:7528:1F0C:40A5 History

• IP attempts to warn user about engaging in an edit war. Comment is removed with edit summary: "Pot meet kettl."
• Zero attempts were made to engage with the IP in a constructive manner.

Shapeshifter (The Dead Rabbitts album) 4 reverts of 68.54.212.75 between 10th of June and 11th June History

• All reverts for good reasons, however, zero attempts made to engage the IP editor in discussion regarding the issue.

Blocked on 5th of July for 72 hours

Julian Green 3rd - 5th of July

• 1st revert
• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert
• 4th revert
• 5th revert
• 6th revert
• 7th revert

10th July

• 8th revert

• Another editor who was attempting to put in information Walter Goriltz did not agree with did follow procedure and use the talk page, where editors did engage with each other to form consensus. The following exchange took place:

"I am encouraged to use the talk page, but get no answer. What does that mean? 64.203.182.106) 18:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, you didn't see what I wrote above in the Change of nationality section.

I have fixed those now. Any others? User:Walter Görlitz] 18:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the fact that you didn't immediately get a response is that most wikipedia editors are not paid to do so and so you have to deal with others who may be be living life at Roanoke speed. User:Walter Görlitz 18:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)"

Obviously that wasn't the entirety of the discussion, but the acidity of the response was rather alarming.

Cem Özdemir 7th June

• 1st revert

9th June

• 2nd revert

12th June

• 3rd revert
• 4th revert

10th July

• 5th revert

Though this is very spread out, I bring it up because it is still an ongoing dispute between the two.

Removal of warning from talk page given by User:Maurice Flesier with the edit summary 'lies' - to be fair, it was not properly used. However, not engaging with the other editor and using words clearly not in the spirit of AGF is problematic.

Rookie Blue (season 5) 2nd July

• 1st revert

3rd July

• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert
• 4th revert
• 5th revert
• 6th revert

At 10:14 on the the 3rd of July the IP editor attempts to start dialogue on Walter's talk page It is reverted without response. The IP address then tries to put warnings on the talk page twice, which are also reverted without response.

Then at 18:25 the IP address leaves a message saying: I am trying to talk to you but you aren't listening. Again this is also reverted without response

At 18:35 the IP address finally puts a message on the article's talk page instead. Given that this was likely the editor's first day on the encyclopaedia, and they did not know what they were doing, I find the lack of dialogue disquieting.

Some of these issues were dealt with on the day, some have gone unnoticed, but this is behaviour that seems to be immune to blocks or chastisement. The editor also has a habit of deleting everything they find objectionable from their talk page History, using edit summaries in place of discussion. Whilst they are perfectly within their rights to do so, this hampers or kills any chance of reasonable dialogue with some editors, and leaves open the possibility that administrators, or other editors, who come to the page do not know whether or not the editor has received prior warnings.

I would personally advocate for a long block. However, as I said, I am not comfortable making this decision as it may be thoroughly misguided, so I am putting it here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, but first some clarification.

The anon editing on Thomas Dooley is the same as Julian Green.

The anon editing on Rookie Blues season 5 is the same who has been removing referenced material on the Murdoch Mysteries episodes article and has been blocked for that behaviour.

In both cases, I was not dealing with new editors.

In all of the cases listed here, it was my "always on" nature that caused the edit wars. Now that I have a new, full-time job, I'm not always on and have taken the last block to heart. Notice the action on Cem Özdemir. The first revert was based on the discussion and was after several days. Second revert was out of frustration. I brought the discussion to RfC and the first editor to respond resoundingly supported my actions.

In short, more discussion is needed. More civility is needed. If a block is the outcome, I'll live with that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Panyd: I have to agree that Walter Görlitz just came off from a 3 days block and has started edit warring again. While he was blocked he made 2 unblock request, first one was like "I'm not the only editor doing so" and other one was more of a parody.[15] In short words, no remorse.

On Cem Özdemir, he was edit warring for the same senseless edit that he used to make before the full protection. He was warned.[16] Something he regarded as "lies".[17] I haven't checked his other recent contributions yet, but his behavior is inappropriate and having a look at his block history, a bigger block shall be imposed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Per Walter's comment above, he knows what he did, he's repentant, and it seems to me that at the end of the day he has the best interests of the project at heart. My only experience with Walter was on a footy blp RfC and he seemed to handle it very well IMHO. I took the issue to be more of a blp question without realizing it was really a WP:FOOTY issue. He showed great patience in trying to explain the situation but few were hearing him. It finally got sorted. On this matter, I've not read through all that is posted above. I trust the admin's accuracy. But unless Walter is edit warring right now, I'd say this is all moot. Blocks aren't meant to punish, they are meant to stop disruptive behaviour in the moment. If he's not demonstrating that at the moment, then this should be closed. The whole thing can be addressed with a longer block if and when he does edit war again. If it does happen, then I would trust that the blocking admin will take note of the behaviour at that time, plus review the recent past behaviours and make the appropriate block length. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

My issue is that this behaviour repeats every time he is unblocked. That suggests that the behaviour is never going to stop, and short blocks are in vein as in 3 days it'll all start again. The majority of Walter's reverts are done for very good reasons, but having a good reason doesn't mean you can continuously ignore the rules. His engagement with other editors and lack of co-operation are also very worrying, especially when it comes to his talk page. Again, he's perfectly within his rights to delete things that are there, but he does so in lieu of discussion. If another participant in an edit war wishes to discuss an issue with him, or if anybody wishes to give him a warning, it vanishes shortly thereafter. These are not the hallmarks of somebody willing to engage productively with the community. Continuous edit warring is disruptive. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Panyd:, No, sorry. You might not be intending to, but with this ANI action you're coming across as having some issue with Walter personally. The time for this ANI would have been DURING the behaviour, not status post. He might have been edit warring but nothing now rises to the ANI level. And as @DangerousPanda: correctly points out, behaviour is the purview of RfC/U. And I agree with @Sven Manguard:, Walter does stop edit warring and there is hope he will find more contructive ways to cope. This is an editor who has shown patience, who does work to protect the project, as you yourself pointed out in describing his edits. He's not a hooligan looking to make trouble under the radar, and we've all had to deal with those types. So we all well know the difference. He's making a positive contribution. He's created articles and has shown by his efforts that he's a valuable editor here. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Two years ago, I had to warn Walter Görlitz off from edit warring (in that case, upload warring) on Commons. While he didn't take the conversation well (admittedly, out of a lack of patience at the mess he and others were causing, I was more curt than I should have been), he did stop edit warring on Commons. Seeing that he's edit warred on two projects now, and on this one for some time, leads me to believe that it's an engrained behavior that he can't or won't break. Seeing that he's stopped edit warring on Commons, however, gives me a faint hope that he can change. I think his next block for edit warring should be a few months long, but I'm fine with giving him one last chance before that block. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment A "review of behaviour" us the purview of WP:RFC/U the panda ₯’ 00:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

First to address Sven Manguard. My first known exposure to the commons was a case of an image of one of the 2010 World Cup venues in South Africa. The image was provided for use on the commons. It was taken by a private citizen however, there is some copyright law that makes such an image a copyright violation, but only in South Africa. The image was removed from the commons and was not permitted to be uploaded to any project for use there. My takeaway from that event was that the Wikicommons operated on the most restrictive set of copyright laws across all projects and all nations where commons material may be seen. That may have been an incorrect take-away, but that was my impression. So two years ago, I discovered that there were copyrighted logos and crests present on football kits, primarily jerseys, and they were displayed in English Wikipedia. I proceeded to replace those images with versions that didn't break the English Wikipedia's interpretation of copyright law. An editor from another project reverted and didn't explain. I was eventually blocked for my behaviour but the other editor wasn't. Seems about par for me. Now, what a good editor would have done is discussed it with me. No such discussion was entered. What a good editor would have done is uploaded the other image separately and asked me to use that image. As an aside here, having two images, one with copyrighted material and the other without, has caused edit wars on the English project as non-English editors or those with little understanding of the interpretation elect to use "the more accurate" version. What a good amin would have done is recognized my edit summaries and opened a discussion with me and filled-in my gap. But none of that happened. That tells me that the commons is a law unto itself and I avoid it. I have also been uploading alternate versions of images there and asking other editors to approach the problem that way, something Sven Manguard has failed to mention. I also have spent a great deal of time sourcing images that are clear copyright violations and nominating them for deletion. I find a great deal of irony in that process since one image that is a copyright violation on English wikipedia is immediately deleted while another one (the jersey) isn't, even though it's a copyright violation on English wikipedia.

As for "engrained behavior", the only ingrained behaviour I have is one to literal interpretation. I believe that any violation of a policy or guideline is disruptive behaviour at best and vandalism at worst. So when I revert, I explain which policy, guideline, MoS or consensus is being violated and revert without fear of breaking 3RR. Apparently no all editors agree with that. In that case, let's get rid of all guidelines, MoSes and the idea of consensus so we can have even more edit wars. If following them is wrong, I'll stop. If I revert and cite the reason and the other editor, usually a new editor or anon, reverts that, at what point do I say fuck it? That's a serious question and I want a serious answer.

Now to address OccultZone: What you perceive as a "senseless edit" is not one to me. Based on what I wrote in the previous paragraph, do you think that editing to maintain guidelines, MoSes and consensus decisions are pointless? Do you even understand that without them the project would look like crap and contain even more outrageous material than it already does? Very few of my edits are pointless, and I certainly don't revert those who change the ones that are pointless.

Finally, my second unblock request was not a parody. It was a sincere effort to be unblocked by listing, point by point, that I understood why my previous request was denied. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, one more thing. The idea that an editor or admin labels an edit as senseless out of preference is ridiculous. Suppose you thought that golf was senseless would you therefore label any edit to an article on that subject as senseless? Even if it were following every other guideline, etc? Keep your opinions to yourself or go back to the playground where that sort of argument has weight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, golf is senseless. EEng (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment  I haven't looked at the diffs, but I agree that there is a problem here.  I came into contact with the editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Time Developer Studio, where issues continued at Talk:Real Time Developer Studio.  This diff seems to be a summary of behavior I found questionable.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I agree to Panyd's concerns. Most recently, he was blocked due to edit war, a week ago but still insists on this issue. When I first joined to Wikipedia, I've blocked several times because of edit war. Görlitz, as an experienced user, I think he should be more careful and pioneer for other users. Last edit war started by Görlitz on article of Mesut Özil. As seen Cem Özdemir's religion, he trying to impose their personal views. I'm not admin but I don't think he extract lessons from sanctions. – Maurice Flesier (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you said you would seek assistance on the Cem Özdemir but instead reverted and continued to edit war. I eventually requested an RfC and have been watching things there without touching the article.

As for the Mesut Özil article, you started the edit war. You were reverted by an editor and then restored the information. I then reverted and pointed you to the editing guidelines. You reverted and then violated WP:NPA by calling me out personally on the talk page. An anon from Germany then reverted you and replied to you. You then reverted again! A different anon reverted you. By the time I arrived you were on your fourth revert. So I started nothing there, but did report you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• A report was filed at WP:ANEW by Walter against Maurice Flesier on the Mesut Özil article here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

How many pic are allowed?

Two years ago I had a disagreement with a admin about the amount of pics allowed on a certain page, ( The Admin had changed 100's of other pages aswell) , turns out the admin was right in the rule book. Since then it seems the rules are either being ignored or being replaced, can someone tell me what is it?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_1#Logos_and_idents This page has a tidy up tag for the logo section so I took some out, but someone keeps on undoing, because there using this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo which is full of them logos for the reason for undoing the cull.

What the deal? Does the Nintendo page have FAR to many or has wiki changed its mind on use of pics, if so I will be reinstating the page on the Night time page. --Crazyseiko (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are talking about image galleries, the guideline is on WP:Gallery, which says that "a gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved or moved to the Wikimedia Commons". As for a specific gallery of logos, it starts to get complicated. First, one could say that a gallery of historical logos is not "indiscriminate" per se and it adds some sort of encyclopedic value. Second, logos can either be non-free (which in most cases should be removed under WP:NFTABLE; and WP:NFCCP rules 3, 8 and 10c) or free content (such as those tagged with Template:PD-logo, in which the logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes).

I do not think we had as much "PD-logo"-tagged images back in 2012 as we do now. Two years ago, it was easier to remove these logo galleries because all of the images were fair use logos that did not comply with WP:NFCCP. That is now harder to do when many of them are now considered public domain, and now should be treated like other free content images. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the page history of Sky 1 for the past month, and specifically the Nintendo reference, I suspect that it is a sockpuppet of a blocked user using a dynamic address. In fact, this use of a changing dynamic address was alluded to in the investigation discussion. In the past two days, he appears to have edited on both 83.39.46.74 and 82.152.187.189 (making changes to many of the same pages). The reference to Nintendo was made by one of the other now-blocked sockpuppets several weeks ago. Sky 1 page is now currently semi-protected due to sock puppetry (because he is on a dynamic IP address, trying to administer blocks would just make him to jump to a new IP, and lead to collateral damage on the used ones). Zzyzx11 (talk) Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems Nintendo page does not have to many, but I cant be sure? the editors who deal with that page are standing by them, I can't blame them for that, but I just want to make sure that page is not flooded with too many pics. --Crazyseiko (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the logo gallery in most cases is pointless without some form of critical analysis as otherwise it's just a logo timeline and you can find those at Logopedia or someplace, for here though it doesn't add information for the general reader besides pretty images and that's important. Also, the Nintendo article is far longer than the Sky 1 article which does to some degree justify more pictures as visual aids but not so much the logo gallery for either. It's a tough call but I don't think ANI or even AN would be the right place, admins don't make rules and it's a content dispute more than anything which doesn't need any admins to step in so WP:VPP might have been my first place to go. tutterMouse (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mcclian

Mcclian (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has had an account here for five years. In that time they have received 24 template warnings on their talk page for various reasons. Among them, they mark every edit they make as minor despite few of them actually being minor. They've never sourced any of their edits. While not all of their edits are inaccurate, a significant portion of them are. Those with some knowledge of professional wrestling will know that edits like these ([18][19][20]) are deliberate errors. I've dropped the templates and have tried to write out exactly what they're doing wrong, and I've seen at least one other user has done so in the past as well. I don't believe this user has ever responded to anybody's concerns. The user has been blocked previously in early 2012 for vandalism, though they seem to have learned little from that experience.LM2000 (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This may be a stupid question, but do they have their preferences set to mark all edits as minor by default? Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we can know that for sure without them telling us and to my knowledge this user has never responded to anybody.LM2000 (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

False accusations of vandalism and their encouragement by the community

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 wonder if anyone has an opinion about the following situation.

1. a user made three clearly described edits to the article wind wave ([21], [22], [23])
2. User:AlanS reverted those edits for no reason ([24], [25], [26])
3. User:AlanS then made false accusations of vandalism ([27], [28])

The end result has been that the original user got blocked, and later got left a warning for having pointed out that User:AlanS made false accusations of vandalism. The article is semi-protected until October and contains factually incorrect material. Meanwhile User:AlanS received no warning for reverting for no reason, nor for making false accusations of vandalism.

Does everyone approve of this? 186.37.203.110 (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You do know you've made it pretty obviously that you're in all likelihood an IP evading a block? AlanS (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

There may be drama ahead.... Alan - Investigations of socking go on WP:SPI, not here. 186.37.203.110 - you can still edit the talk page to make edit requests, or you can create an account and request autoconfirmation, so there are avenues available for you to improve the article. Both of you need to stop reverting and use the talk page.I see no edits on Talk:Wind wave since April. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

They've already gotten themselves blocked Ritchie. AlanS (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP cleaned up an article's lead, seemingly within the guidelines set out in WP:LEADLENGTH and did some copyediting. That sounds like a pretty good set of edits as far as I'm concerned. Why the name calling? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP is an extremely disruptive editor. Who gets themselves blocked on IP after IP through making edits against consensus and engaging in abuse. AlanS (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If you made good faith edits to an article that you thought improved it, only to receive templates and block threats, how might you respond? Focus on the article, not the editors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie you might want to check out Paul Keating for an idea of how abusive and disruptive this IP has been. It will even blank out talk pages just because it will only listen to what it thinks is right. AlanS (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

And as soon as a block is up for it or it finds a new IP address it's at it again. It just plain doesn't give a rats about what anyone else thinks. It is right and that trumps everything. AlanS (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This goes back to a conversation I was having the other day with Dennis, where in these cases, semi-protection is a better answer. Clearly the IP didn't get his way and is upset about it, but blocking clearly isn't working as there's no real practical way to actually stop someone editing if they think nothing of just swapping IPs all the time. Protection would probably be a better answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know why there isn't a weaker form of protection for pretty much everything (No IP editing of anything). AlanS (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• I will say this, I personally think the IP is right when it comes to the merits, as do a number of other editors on that talk page. I see one editor quoted WP:BRD to them, then went an instantly violated it themselves, and overall, treated the IP like crap. That doesn't justify the IP's reaction and overall dickishness, but it does explain some of it. That sentence, sourced or not, IS fluffy and doesn't belong without better context, if at all. Some of the recipients of said dickishness have little to complain about as it was virtually self-inflicted. That said, there isn't anything to do in this report, admin wise. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand, in my opinion, there was no vandalism. On the other hand, I have NO sympathy for the IP. This was a content dispute that became an edit war. The IP then used insulting edit summaries. The IP should have been blocked for personal attacks. The block was justified, although the block reason was wrong. The IP, who appears to be IP-hopping, has a history of conflict with AlanS. I don't know if that is due to the IP stalking AlanS, or, less likely, to AlanS stalking the IP. I think that the IP was mostly right on the merits as to the content, but the use of insulting edit summaries should result in a block. At the same time, do not label a conduct dispute as vandalism unless it is vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Where is the content dispute? The reason that User:AlanS gave for undoing my work on wind wave was "Restore to version before editing by known edit warrior". Can you somehow deduce from that that User:AlanS perceived some problem with my work? Or do you suspect that he was merely trying to piss me off?

"The IP should have been blocked for personal attacks" - in your world view, it seems that calling someone a liar for making a false accusation of vandalism is a worse thing to do than making a false accusation of vandalism. Why do you not consider a false accusation of vandalism a personal attack? Why do you not think that User:AlanS deserved a block for making such false accusations? You can see from his talk page that it's not the first time he's done it. Why did you not even warn him that this is unacceptable? Is it really because you don't think it is unacceptable?

"I don't know if that is due to the IP stalking AlanS, or, less likely, to AlanS stalking the IP." - why do you think it is less likely? Why didn't you do some basic research before jumping to a conclusion? Go and look at the article histories of Wind wave, American Airlines Flight 191, Dina Meyer, and Sarah Wayne Callies, to name but a few. Tell me who edited them first, and therefore who was doing the stalking. 190.162.219.249 (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP (or at least the one who opened this thread) is blocked. The trouble is, as we've discussed, in practical terms you cannot indef block an IP if they are assigned dynamically. It's all very well saying "they're socking, they'll be blocked again", but somebody has to do the work. You get collateral damage, or you can't rangeblock enough. Admins are fighting a battle that's rigged against them here. Exactly what we do, other than Siegenthaler II - This Time It's War, who knows? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

While the template AlanS applied used the word "vandalism," my guess is it was intended to imply the "disruptive" part, not vandalism per se. What started out as edit warring and personal attacks, and now it's IP-hopping block evasion. I've semi-protected a bunch of articles because we can't have nice things. If the individual behind the IP would agree to be civil and use the talk pages to hash out disagreements, there wouldn't be an issue with the majority of their edits.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Before you edited your comment, you made it clear that you hadn't even had the courtesy to look at the diffs I posted before pontificating. He accused me of vandalism on at least two separate occasions; it was very clear that he intended to do so. What's your motivation for pretending otherwise? If User:AlanS would not make false accusations of vandalism, and if his behaviour wasn't condoned by the likes of you, then there wouldn't be an issue here.

By the way I hope you felt really good about spending your time undoing my time-consuming work here, here, here, here, here, here and here to name but a few. Did you feel like you were really helping to improve the encyclopaedia there? Did it thrill you that you were able to return a lot of articles to a deficient state? You're going to have to spend a lot of your time looking out for my work if you want to undo it all. 190.162.219.249 (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't have a leg to stand on making any complaints when you are so open about evading blocks and so ready to engage in personal abuse. AlanS (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• @AlanS: Good faith edits are not vandalism no matter whether they are good or bad edits. No matter the IP's own failures, you failed to assume good faith and have violated policy yourself. You, at the very least, need to brush up on your understanding of vandalism according to Wikipedia policy. Although, in addition to the least required, you could also apologize to the IP for calling their edits vandalism.--v/r - TP 17:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This is all in my line of thinking, that the IP bears most of the fault, but not all of it. You can take a good potential editor who is new, badger them with "vandal" tags, and guarantee that they will never, ever become a good editor because you have poisoned the well for them and made their first month's experience so bad. The IP had some good points, just bad methods (typical of a newb). Wikipedia would have been better served with a calm chat with him instead of what happened. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@TParis:, I'll apologize to you guys for not taking as much time as I ought to of have to determine that selecting 'disrupting editing' in TW isn't always the best option and can get backs up. I will continue to improve my understanding of policy as suggested also. As per the IP, I don't think they are going to get any apologises from anyone after some of what they have thrown around. AlanS (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, the ol' 'it was twinkle' excuse. It's an oldie but still a goodie, I suppose. Please just be more careful and mindful of what those templates say. Twinkle makes drive-by tagging quite easy.--v/r - TP 01:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Taken on board. AlanS (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle warnings do include a choice of Personal Attacks. To template the IP for personal attacks would have been correct. To template the IP for edit-warring would have been correct. It was not vandalism, and it was only disruptive editing because it was edit-warring. Choose the Twinkle warning carefully. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what it not vandalism. The IP did deserve to be blocked for personal attacks, but did not deserve to be accused of vandalism. The incorrect allegation of vandalism is itself a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

So the software made you make a false accusation of vandalism, did it? It made you do it twice? And you think that you should apologise to random passers by instead of the person you falsely accused of vandalism? 190.162.219.249 (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Basically the summary seems to be, yes it's fine for people to make false accusations of vandalism, it's fine for someone to revert work for absolutely no reason, and if someone should get angry for being lied about and harassed, then that's a good enough post hoc justification for lying about them in the first place. Thank you all for your input. 190.162.219.249 (talk) 03:57, 16 July 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:Damian80

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, the user Damian80 is falsely accusing me of breaking wikipedia by ALWAYS reverting my edits and mocking me by saying "it's not revelant" with no further explenation. I'm tired and other people are tired to. Go to his talk page, many people's complaints are their. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeirdPsycopath (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Also i forgot to add i am not rude or impolite i have only done that twice to Damian80, because he mocks and reverts my edits. I also have never vandalised except for two times but i never did it again because i like helping out wikipedia. Thanks for Reading! ~ WeirdPsycopath — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeirdPsycopath (talk • contribs) 21:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be a tit-for-tat filing for the issue a few threads above the panda ₯’ 21:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've already warned this user about their "methods". I've also asked Damian to reach out a little more, as their summaries and use of talk page are lacking. While I was there, I notified him of this thread, and indicated his participation was not needed as this claim above is completely without merit, and should likely just be closed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:35, 15 July 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.

New sock puppet of User:Altimgamr needs to be stopped

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 Ranoclue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new sock of indef blocked long time vandal User:Altimgamr and needs to be blocked before he messes things up even more than he already has (just look at his contributions...). Thomas.W ^talk 07:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I had checked too about 6 days ago on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BarberChairBot. Have you opened SPI? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Now blocked by Materialscientist. Someone still ought to block BarberChairBot, which was to be The Ranoclue's bot account. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I haven't filed an SPI-report, and don't intend to either (per WP:DENY). All I care about is that each new sock is stopped as quickly as possible. Thomas.W ^talk 08:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Materialscientist. Editor was moving the SPI reports on Altimgamr so that's pretty obvious. Some people really do have no life. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 16 July 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.

46.120.172.91

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 have a look at Special:Contributions/46.120.172.91's soapboxing and personal attacks, mostly at Talk:2014 Israeli offensive on Gaza. This edit is typical. And while you're at it, Special:Contributions/Alhakim009 could perhaps do with blocking too, the latest of several socks of the form Alhakim###. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Continues to do the same [29] [30] after being warned [31]. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This IP above has several personal attacks listed above and also here. I was going to report to AN3 but it is already here. The reverted edit was a pretty nasty attack in Hebrew. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 11:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

And the IP restored the attack after Solarra removed it. RolandR (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I ran the "personal attack" through Google Translate and it didn't seem like a "pretty nasty attack" to me, not by today's standards. I have seen people get away with much worse attacks than that here on WP... Thomas.W ^talk 13:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• The "shame on" sections aren't personal attacks just lame and slightly insulting, so I wouldn't get in an edit war over them, as the war is more disruptive than the words. Translating Solarra's link (because I don't speak Hebrew) doesn't help much, and looks more like insults than personal attacks, but again, I don't speak Hebrew. The one comment with "antisemitic" is over the line, and I will drop a note on his talk page. It is frustrating, but not as frustrating as living south of Haifa, which is where this IP geolocates to. It isn't an excuse, but I can try and empathize. He has to stop the disruption and I will do what I can to not block him for now. Give me a bit to try to communicate with him. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It was quite a nasty attack. The IP called FunkMonk a "stupid antisemite", and called for "his name to be wiped out". Admittedly we see much worse on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that this was OK. Personal attacks on an individual editor should never be acceptable. RolandR (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This sort of editing has a chilling effect on our goal of a neutral point of view. I have blocked the IP editor for engaging in personal attacks in a content dispute. Using another language to get past scrutiny does not make the situation any better. I have given the IP a short block, they may contribute without intimidation when they get back.

If we ignore this sort of thing then good editors get fed up and leave. They deserve to be protected against nasty comments. NPOV demands an environment where people don't feel insulted or intimidated when they disagree. Chillum 13:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: it seems you were reaching out to this user as I was blocking him. This was just bad timing, I was not trying to overrule your approach. If you think that your recent communication renders the block moot then you are welcome to remove it. Chillum 13:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• • No, I'm not going to undo it as both options were valid ways to deal with the problem, I was just trying to do what it is I do and got a few edit conflicts, so time was not on my side. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The Google translation looks pretty poor. Perhaps a Hebrew-speaking admin could help (Hmmm. I expected there would be more. Maybe a scan of hewiki admins who speak English?) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:56, 16 July 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.

Removal of AWB bit for User:OccultZone

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 requesting the removal of the AWB bit from OccultZone. I believe this should be decided by an admin not currently involved. The two main problems are POV pushing and not admitting mistakes while making too many mistakes. Overall, I think OccultZone is a good editor, but wants to speed things up without taking proper care. Discussion has been taking place at his talk page.

1) Normally, OccultZone does 6-8 edits a minute via scripts or AWB. He has done upto 17 edits in one minute (~July 20 19:20z) via a script. In bot mode, AWB will do ~8 edits a minute. If OccultZone is doing over six edits a minute, he is not looking at the what is being changed, thus misses errors. Higher rate of speed for talk pages is normal compared to articles.

OccultZone's Response: "I never made 17 edits in one minute. But I've read before and it was under ARBcom that you are allowed to make as many edits you want to, there is no guidelines or rules against that. While you create wikiprojects you may even exceed 23 edits a minute. The editing restrictions include cosmetic changes or those edits that break things(templates, sentences, categories), both I haven't done. You can get bot only for a assigned task, it cannot be used for many tasks that quickly only your account can be used for that."

2) Doing way too much trivial stuff with AWB. [32], [33], and [34]. Others have told him stop and I've repeatably warned him on other trivial matters. However, removing just a wikilink may or may not be trivial for some people.

3) While removing a wikilink can and cannot be ok, Occultzone is removing the first instance from ledes. See here and here for recent conversations. Rule #3 of AWB states, "Do not make controversial edits with it. Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue; village pump, WikiProject, etc. "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale. As he has been repeatably told to stop this by multiple people, this makes it controversial. But, OccultZone has continued to remove links.

OccultZone's Response: "Some people don't have idea about the linking, but if they know once that no FA or most of the GA links to unnecessary amount of professions, geolocations etc, removing them is improvement and done after numerous consensus on linking guidelines. A link should not be overlinked from start. So if they are not aware about the linking, and every single profession or location has been linked, what should be done? Maybe they can advise "don't do it", but usually that is same as saying "don't remove unreliable source". You read WP:LINKSTYLE? The last point, it discourages the overlinking. I don't revert back where editor still wants the links to profession, geolocations, but always done by someone else who is using any similar script."

4) He is making way too many mistakes. Mistakes happen to everyone, but when editing so fast and doing wrong things, it just increases the error rate. When told of a problem, OccultZone often never says he is wrong, but points to AWB or Wikipedia pages. A recent example, User talk:OccultZone#Date formats and AWB and ENGVAR of where doesn't understand. He says in a later conversations the following two things while original thread hadn't even closed.

"4) Magioladitis said not to remove dmy date or engvar tag, I have disabled that and date changes. But issue ends there, not sure what has to be done about it when the step has been already taken.

:Since even Crisco 1492 if he had agreed that I wasn't wrong with the MOS:NUM, but he addressed that was no consensus and the page' style remained for ages."

I asked Crisco if he agreed with OccultZone, he said, "Occultzone has a curious affliction which leads him/her to misinterpret comments in a way positive to his/her position. No, no, and no: I never said the MOS supports him/her changing the dates unilaterally."
OccultZone a few months ago said, "It is a good suggestion, after all, we don't really object people who uses AWB as "awb spammers", unless the changes are made against consensus, or any changes that are against the WP:ENGVAR".

Other recent examples can be found here, here, here. "Wait! You changed debut with Noël Coward in many pages without even checking your edits. You AWB permission has been revoked temporarily. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)" Bgwhite (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

While everything has been already informed here and my talk page. I would just say that I had agreed not to make dmy changes outside the scope. Literally solves the problem. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore I've also agreed not to remove URL with AWB, no matter how controversial. There was no instance where I haven't admitted the mistakes I did. Plus I hadn't made any related changes with AWB until the assurance. Am I wrong? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I second Bgwhite's request. OZ means well, but moving at the rate he/she is simply means that issues are getting through. To prevent possible disruption, and force OZ to focus on edits being made, the removal of AWB privelages is probably necessary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I also note that my request for OZ to stop using AWB to make controversial edits was reverted with the edit summary "Probably not my first AWB edit and You've repeated it once already so stay on subject" (I fail to see how any of that applied to OZ's use of the tool). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: You had any issue after that one edit from yesterday? Even if I am alone, I consider that there has to be some kind of repetition of the error even after the telling once. So you may want to read again that I haven't made that one edit again after you had asked not to. I will refer [35] for you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• For a long time, if you give this a wider look. I've been editing accordingly. I was told by bgwhite to not make edits he deemed to be 'trivial', I stopped. He told me to make a userpage, I did it.[36] He told that I should not tag new articles with {{orphan}}, {{underlink}}[37] I stopped that too. Remember that none of it was formal but I guessed that there would be some point so I did.

• He is confusing with guidelines of WP:MOSLINK and not willing to talk about the WP:OVERLINKING guideline. There are a number of links that had to be never linked from start, there are words used in daily life. Despite the number of consensus against the overlinking. I reaffirmed that one from John.[38] Bgwhite seems to be having no comment about that. He is not discussing that how such edit is controversial or trivial when there is consensus to remove these overlinks.

• If Bgwhite wants the overlinking, it was clearly told that he can comment on the ongoing discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Linking. Just like anyone else who want multiple links of those words that are used in daily life. But I don't think he or any one else(who he pointed) have made any comments for changing the guidelines.

• Now that he failed on WP:ELN to prove that the link is non-controversial[39] he has opened a thread here. Thus this post seems more of a WP:BOOMERANG to me because Bgwhite tried to create the same scenario on Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, though 90% of the comments are irrelevant as they don't talk about the credibility of the specific URL, if he wants to discuss any "17 edits" he can surely bring it to talk page of the user.

• But I would repeat it again, that I haven't made any of the edits that he questioned. I never make same edits until the assurance. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I tend to support Bgwhite's request from my own experience of OZ's inconsistent and inappropriate edits to Year in Topic articles. Deb (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Deb: But bigger point is that there is no support for overlinking. Are you in favor of overlinking on articles? You don't know that you are not allowed to link dates like 1 January, 2 January, etc.?[40] Didn't you contradicted WP:DATELINK ? Yes you did and it is actually inconsistent and inappropriate or you can let me know what was the reason behind reverting. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate because Year articles are specifically excluded (WP:DATELINK). Inconsistent because you only changed some of the articles and did not touch others in the same sequence. Deb (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Deb: Years article have to do nothing with the overlinking, they should be rid of more datings than usual articles because these years articles have templates. You have made no discussion about it and simply reverted to a overlinked version. I don't know what more you had expected because I edited it just for cleanup and removing overlinks. Why you don't just open a section on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking and try gaining consensus? If you go through the history of better and older articles such as Years in France, Years in the United Kindgom, Years in India, etc. you will find that overlinking has been removed by many editors after reaching to consensus. But probably these few articles still remain overlinked because you won't accept the WP:OVERLINKING and WP:DATELINK. Next time, kindly show some better evidence that how that edit was inappropriate. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: you demonstrate two fundamental misunderstandings here:

1. You have not read the guideline. WP:DATELINK explicitly says Intrinsically chronological articles (1789, January, and 1940s) may themselves contain linked chronological items.
2. Secondly, WP:AWB#Rules_of_use #3 clearly says Do not make controversial edits with it, and if challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale. You are neither demonstrating nor achieving consensus, just telling Deb (who is a high-experienced and respected editor) that she is wrong. That is not how AWB should be used. If challenged like that, stop, discuss, and make sure that there is a consensus. Instead you simply tell others that they are wrong, close or delete the discussion, and continue as before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

But here, 1 January, 2 January had been linked which is overlinking. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Point me where I have repeated the same edit with AWB, clearly this is WP:BOOMERANG, because right after the objection with the underlinking, it has been more than 12 hours and I have not made even a single edit. As for being controversial edit, there has been consensus to remove overlinking from articles many times. So how it is controversial to remove any overlinking on articles? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone:, is English your native language? That is a serious question.
I quoted 13 words from WP:DATELINK, and you appear to be either unwilling or unable to understand what they mean.
Competence is required, and you do not appear to be sufficiently competent in the English language to edit an English-language encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is but lets keep this on the topic. The 13 words that you have quoted from the guideline, they are not about linking dates on articles such as 1913 in Literature. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Occultzone: An article about foo in YYYY is an "intrinsically chronological article". If you want believe that this exclusion in WP:DATELINK should not apply to foo in YYYY, go and start an RFC about changing the guideline. But unless and until there is a consensus to change the guideline as you want, you remain wrong to edit as you did, let alone to use AWB for that purpose.

Secondly, if English is your native language, then I think you should be banned from any editing on Wikipedia. I had hoped that you might be learning the language and would be improving through increased use of it. However, if it is your native language, then your inability to write decent clear English is unlikely to improve soon, and your inability to understand simple English is also unlikely to improve.

Effective collaboration on the English Wikipedia requires competence in the English language, which you clearly lack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If I haven't agreed with you about Overlinking it doesn't means that I can't hear or understand what you are typing. Sorry but you are counting the least unbelievable points. How come overlinking was removed on 1346 . Maybe if you could've talked about it I would've thought that you are right somewhere about linking dates, but clearly you are not. It is clearer now that who is finding it hard to understand. Like 1913 in France, 1913 in literature is no way a chronological article like you are treating, a good example January, but still you cannot repeat the same link. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: The problem is not whether you agree with me or Deb or any of the other editors who have have challenged you edits.

The problem is that:

a) your reply indicates an inability to read and comprehend 13 words from a guideline. That is further evidence of your English language incompetence

b) you still insist that everyone else is wrong. That is not how WP:CONSENUS works. Your edits are clearly controversial, and you should not have been using AWB to do controversial edits.

Further evidence of your linguistic incompetence: you are counting the least unbelievable points. Very funny. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

We are suppose to talk about the WP:DATELINK and WP:OVERLINKING more than we are talking about what a editor thinks about article.

So I would ask you again, if they are controversial for AWB. I had agreed that I wouldn't be making. But you cannot say that they don't follow the guidelines. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: It is not the responsibility of other editors to going through all your thousands of high-speed edits to find out exactly how many times you have repeated a particular type of edit.

The issue here is that is that you are still insisting that you are correct, and still trying to claim that everyone else is wrong. That's why you should not be allowed to use AWB, which requires that you Do not make controversial edits with it.

Maybe you choose to ignore "do not make controversial edits with it". Maybe you do not understand "do not make controversial edits with it".

This is simple: you are not using AWB as the rules say you should. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying that I would be making that type of edit as per the agreement on my talk page, about 10 hours ago. So what is left? But if you are having issue with WP:OVERLINKING then it is none of my issue. You had similar concern with Tony1 and Ohconfucius about overlinking. But again how come removing the overlinking is controversial? John and few others are doing it for a long time too. He recently affirmed on his talk page, yesterday. Like I have linked above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support prompt removal of the bit. I endorse all that Bgwhite had written above, and note that a succession of editors have raised concerns on OccultZone's talk page. Many of these issues have not been resolved, and there is a further serious problem with Occultzone's attitude to discussing concerns raised.

I have set this out in some detail under 3 headings below : unresolved problems, repeated failure to adequately discuss issues raised, and poor communications skills

In summary, I see a bundle of serious problems here. Occultzone has a) a simplistic interpretation of policies and guidelines; b) a lack of appreciation of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia; c) poor English or a poor writing style, which makes communication difficult; d) an unwillingness to discuss and resolve problems; e) failure to clean up is own mistakes; f) an unwillingness to retain a visible record of discussions relating to their high-speed AWB editing.

I don't know whether those problems are fixable, but it is clear that will not be resolved soon. While those problems persist, Occultzone should not have access to a high-speed editing tool. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Which issue hasn't been resolved? Everything has been clearly discussed and stated. If you see any thing that happened after the evident agreement, you could've informed right on my talk page or yours, but I don't think that I have reached against the agreement. I don't know what words you prefer but I had agreed not to. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Unresolved problems: I posted a message at posted 20:24, 15 July 2014‎ to ask Occultzone to a) Stop using AWB to change date formats, b) Refrain from any further use of AWB until you have reverted all the edits is which you have done this change

Occultzune's reply at 02:10, 16 July 2014‎ was Page didn't had engvar tag and I assured not doing it

The poor grammar makes that reply unclear, but it definitely does not address my request to clean up the damage already done.

GoingBatty responded at 02:10, 16 July 2014‎ The article didn't have a tag, but it shouldn't need one since the article is about a UK person

... and then at 02:49, 16 July 2014‎ Occultzone closed the thread with the comment I agree with the dating format. I have disabled it and wouldn't be changing them.

So, discussion is closed, but there is 1) no acknowledgement of GoingBatty's point that the absence of a {{use dmy dates}} is inadequate grounds for the imposition of US-style dates, and 2) no attempt to address my request to undo the damage already done.

I spotted one article which had been damaged in this way, but since this was being done through high-speed AWB modules, there many be many more. Occultzone has simply shut down the discussion without addressing that point.

This is unacceptable on multiple counts: i) WP:AWB#Rules_of_use #2 says "Abide by all Wikipedia guidelines, policies and common practices", but far from acknowledging the breach of WP:STRONGNAT, WP:DATERET and MOS:RETAIN, Occultzone insists contrary to long-established guidelines that the edit was correct. ii) An editor using an automated tool to perform large numbers of edits has a responsibility to clean up their own mess. Occultzone is ignoring this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't argued against the dates, I agreed that I was wrong when I had changed them. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. You did argue against it, when you wrote "didn't had engvar tag". That's irrelevant.

You have also not identified what efforts you have made to identify the other pages to which you made this change, or which of them you have reverted.

It is not enough to say that you will stop doing damage. You also need to clean up the damage which you have already done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you have been asking for something that has been already told you almost 10 hours ago. I had told you that:-

I did it on some 160 pages, while 145 were correct(related to american subject). I knew how to rectify from start, if any of my change was bigger than 60 bytes. Because it would mostly remove the engvar and dmy tag or even adding comma can be reflected on any edit that has added more bytes to it. That was about few hours ago.[41] You haven't read? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: You are beyond incompetent: you are being actively disruptive. I made the request on your talk page, where you closed the discussion without responding to my request to clean up your mess.

Now you point to a reply on my talk page, in an unrelated thread, despite my editnotice clearly saying to reply to a message I left on your talk page, then please post the reply on your talk page, and use ping to notify me.

So yes, I missed that that misplaced reply, buried under other messages I received. If you had wanted to resolve the issue, that post should have been made at the place where the issue was being discussed on your talk page, where I would have seen it, and whether the other interested editors would have seen it. The only purpose in posting it somewhere else is to make life difficult for other editors.

Now that I have seen your response, I see that it is unclear. It says that you "knew how to rectify from start", but does not say that you did rectify.

The more you post about this, the more you illustrate my point that you continually refuse to communicate effectively to resolve problems which occur with your use of AWB. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Repeated failure to adequately discuss issues raised. Per WP:TPO, editors are allowed to remove comments from their own talk page ... but if editors do not allow discussions to continue until issues are resolved, then they will need to to be addressed elsewhere, such as here at ANI.

When an editor is performing high-speed edits to a large number of articles, they have a responsibility to respond constructively to good-faith concerns about their editing, and to assist others by ensuring that the record of those discussions remains easily accessible. Instead, Occultzone is closing discussions on issues which are unresolved (see example above) and also here. In the latter case, the issue may be resolved, but Occultzone's closing statement gives little indication of what cleanup has been done, and denies any chance of a followup comment from he complainant. This is not collaborative editing.

These failures are not confined to AWB use. On 13 July, I began creating the article Edward Henry Cooper. At 13:27, 13 July 2014‎ the article was tagged with {{inuse}}, as it had been from its creation at 09:53, 13 July 2014‎. Yet Occultzone waded in and performed a series of edits] which messed up the referencing system in use. The first of these edits was timestamped 13:27, 13 July 2014‎, exactly the same as my previous edit. So the {{inuse}} banner would then have been warning Occultzone that the page was actively in use, and had last been edited less than 60 seconds ago.

I reverted the changes and moved the work-in-progress to my userspace, and raised this on Occultzone's talk page. The discussion was very unsatisfactory, as Occultzone simply would not acknowledge that it was wrong to intervene in the way that they did. Yet while the discussion was still ongoing, Occultzone made a final reply, and then deleted the discussion.

I reopened the issue on my own talk page, where we finally got somewhere. Occultzone did eventually agree not to intervene in an active page creation, and I counted the matter as resolved. But getting there was ridiculously hard work: the {{inuse}} tag is not a complex technical or policy issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have agreed that it was my bad to continuously intervene. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You agree now. But to get there took about ten requests from me, including restarting a conversation you had deleted. The inuse template says To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed ... yet you repeatedly refused to acknowledge what that means.

That illustrates the wider problem. You either have a very bad attitude to other editors, or you have a very severe WP:COMPETENCE problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree now? Wrong: Looks like we have still got the history of diffs[42] so they can prove you wrong.

Sorry but I don't see how I have bad attitude, as for WP:COMPETENCE you have still not realized that I had told you that I wouldn't be intervening in any other issue. Thus you were to comment only on the ongoing issue if there were any. Not that you had to bring the resolved issue and ask for re-explanations. This is happening 5th time here now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, history of diffs. On you talk page 2 complaints from me that you ignored the {{inuse}} tag. You respond only abut the error message in the refs, not about your breach of {{inuse}} ... and then before I have even seen your response you delete the conversation.

I find it in your reversion history, and on my talk I reopen the discussion. Only then you eventually say that you won't do it again.

AFAIK, you didn't do the inuse thing again (tho I have not checked your hundreds of high-speed edits to find out), but as I have noted elsewhere in this thread you have repeated the same habit of closing a discussion before the issue is resolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't really knew that who created the article either, when I saw that the article was created by you, I had specifically asked that what is causing ref error. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Occultzone, you really still still don't get the problem. It doesn't matter who created the article. It was a new page being actively edited by its sole creator. There was no need for you to intervene at all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Above diffs proves that I had already told you about it. I usually don't edit the inuse article. I prefer to skip them, but when I saw error I didn't stopped. But like I have told before that I could've looked into it, but later. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

For goodness sake .. you are still trying to justify the fart that you butted in and ignored a fresh inuse tag.

Yes, you told me about it at 13:33, 13 July 2014‎ , and 5 minutes later at 13:38, 13 July 2014‎, I replied that it was under control. Yet by then, you had already started editing the article, at 13:27.

Why do you still defend your disruptive behaviour? You are simply piling up the evidence against yourself, and reinforcing my point that you repeatedly refuse to communicate effectively to acknowledge you errors nad fix them, and to check with other editors that they are satisfied with your solution.

This is bad enough with manual edits, but it is unacceptable when you are doing high-speed automated edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Poor communications skills. Comments such as these are borderline gibberish: But I would repeat it again, that I haven't made any of the edits that he questioned. I never make same edits until the assurance and Page didn't had engvar tag and I assured not doing it.

You may deem it the way you want to, but what it has to do with "Poor communication"? On that edit, I have clearly stated the reason behind this WP:BOOMERANG, why there was still a need to open when it was already opened on WP:ELN and also my talk page. There is considerably no argument against the guidelines of Overlinking, ANI is place for that? No it is not. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that while Occultzone claims to archive discussions, and his recent contribs include an edit to User talk:OccultZone/Archive 6, the archives are not linked from his talk page. Furthermore, they are not complete archives , and they actively edited after being archived (e.g. [43]) and as in this edit they include material which was never on his talk page. Maintaining a misleading archive like that is worse than no archive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

But again I didn't repeated that edit. The previous incident you named involved no use of any script or software. Keeping it short, I had affirmed that I wouldn't be changing dates and I had placed a dmy tag so there will be no more confusion. As for archive, I had only added the recent discussion that was apparently placed on those sections that were updated. It is not contradictory because archives can be updated or merged. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: I presume that "I didn't repeated that edit" is intended to mean that you did not repeat it. Please write coherent English.

Sorry but it was coherent, I was asking if I have repeated any edited that had been reverted due to dates? Also I had fixed the dates where I had changed them. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem was not just whether you repeated the date-format edit. The problem was also that a) you never acknowledged the complaint that tag or no tag, you should not have done the edit; b) you ignore the request to clean up all the other articles where your AWB use made that change.

You note that the previous incident which I named involved no use of any script or software. That is why I raised it here: it is an example of your attitude to other editors, and your inability to effectively resolve problems with your editing. That series of edits was a conscious decision by you, without any automated tool, to edit in a way which disrupted content creation, and to resist efforts to resolve the issue. You repeatedly chose to ignore the explanation of why you were technically wrong to intervene, and why your intervention disrupted content creation. And you simply deleted the discussion before it was resolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with both parts, I had chose not to intervene on that article anymore, so thought of removing from the talk page as for me the issue was no more active. Didn't knew that you would think otherwise. But it is okay I know now that how other editors may react. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Occultzone, this should probably be my last response, because you are starting to annoy me. But your reply above illustrates how your attitude remains unacceptable.

You claim that you now know not to close a discussion like that. Yet 2 days after that episode, you were back on your talk page closing unresolved discussions, which is why we are at ANI. — BrownHairedGirl — continues after insertion below

Though my talk page clearly puts that I wouldn't be making the edits about dmy and engvar anymore, I don't know any you haven't mentioned that I had repaired if I had misplaced any. Remember, before it was brought to WP:ANI it was first brought to WP:External links/Noticeboard. Didn't asked you but why you start your comment with , when none of my last 100s of edits had to do anything with the edits you were talking about? [44] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I started my comment with a stop sign because a) I did not have time to check hundreds of your edits to see how widespread the problem is; b) you made those changes using an automated tool which was clearly capable of repeating the errors elsewhere; c) I wanted you to fix your errors before continuing to edit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You also say that you thought it was resolved because you "had chose not to intervene on that article anymore". You either do not understand or do not care that the problem was not just about one particular article. It was a problem of you editing any article in that way where a fresh {{inuse}} tag is in place. — BrownHairedGirl — continues after insertion below

I am hearing that for 4th time here now. Ok, but how many times I have told you that I wouldn't be intervening on your {{inuse}} article. I never did after you had told. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me repeat v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-ly.

You either do not understand or do not care that the problem was not just about one particular article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

3 days after that episode, you either do not understand why there is a wider problem, or you choose to ignore the wider problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes there were faults but I would've fully agreed that I've repeated the same episode or if I had repeated the similar edit. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

More gibberish. Please translate that sentence into English. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict and copypasting broke at least 2 sentence on this thread. Fixed both. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

@OccultZone: I ask again. Please take your sentence Yes there were faults but I would've fully agreed that I've repeated the same episode or if I had repeated the similar edit ... and translate it into grammatically correct, coherent English with a clear meaning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually that message was prior to your another message that you had inserted below. Might be hard for you to understand now but at the right moment it wasn't. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

Occultzone, that sentence is gibberish in any context. Please translate it into grammatically correct, coherent English with a clear meaning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 16 July 2014

I hope I can explain you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

Yes there were faults and I admit that. If the episode was repeated or another mistake similar to the previous one, I would definitely agree with all previously written concerns. I do agree though. Do you have any other proposal? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

• Support removal. Any doubts I had about supporting Bgwhite's request have now been removed by OZ's conduct here. Deb (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I asked you how the edit was inappropriate, but you haven't told at all. 1346 is a GA for years article, you see any Overlinking? Lets give this broader view. Suppose I agree that I wouldn't be making these changes with AWB that are actually commended by the WP:OVERLINKING guideline. Still what will stop people from making these articles better? Clearly no FA or most of the GA articles have been affected with OVERLINKING. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal of AWB - user simply doesn't get it. Furthermore they are now disaplying more general competency issues, both with language and their continutal 'chopping up' of people's comments. GiantSnowman 12:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I had agreed to stop using AWB for dmy and engvar, rest of the issues that whether AWB is usable for delinking or not, there was no formal discussion about it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed all chopping after DangerousPanda informed. Thanks both for informing. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal I've lost count of the times this user has made pointless edits (point #4 of the rules of use of AWB) and yet he continues to do so. WP:CIR, and clearly they don't have any. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

When it was last time? I would like to see if it was under this whole month or the previous. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact you had to be told several times shows you simply do not get it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Now I see where WP:CIR issue exists and where you are coming from. Just because I had opposed you on Tfd of Orphan tag. Obviously you have got no evidence of what you claim. I asked if I made any cosmetic changes in last few months. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, OZ, you're going from a simple thread that would temporarily lead to the removal of authority to use AWB to what's likely to be an indefinite block in 3 easy steps! You might want to rethink your strategy, how you edit this thread, and how you talk to people in this thread the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I make 1000s of edits per month (all without AWB, haha!) and I can't check through them all to find the repeated mistakes you've made. The fact I'm not the only one pointing this out to you and someone else had to bring your editing to ANI should have the alarm bells ringing. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I had said what I had to. Of all I agree with Dangerouspanda most, thanks for the stopping by yes it is true by all means and just observed that ec actually changed the comment. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• OZ, my take is that if you need to be agreeing right now to a new method of using AWB—much slower, much more oversight and manual tweaking/untweaking, and much more responsiveness to editor issues that are raised with you about the edits. It's in no one's interests that the matter should have proceeded this far. Tony (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds much better and that is probably the main issue. Indeed I am ready to deal with that one about the speed and manual tweaking. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• (ec) @Tony1: if you have read the discussion above ... do you really think that OccultZone is competent to respond effectively and clearly to editor issues? I see no sign of it, but if I have missed something, please can you give me some pointers to evidence of OccultZone's communications competence ? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 13:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

When you start your comment with and I have got none of my last 100s of edits related to the edit that you were highlighting. I am tend to resolve issue like you've clearly observed. But above comment would've made sense if I hadn't resolved. I ask you for another time have I resolved or not? Have I made another edit having similar pattern? Just yes and no. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ocutzone, I really suggest that you stop. Sentences like the one which begins I am tend to resolve the issue merely reinforce again the point which I and others have made that you cannot write English competently.

Your point about the stop sign doesn't belong in this part of the thread, and in any case you made it before. I replied: I started my comment with a stop sign because a) I did not have time to check hundreds of your edits to see how widespread the problem is; b) you made those changes using an automated tool which was clearly capable of repeating the errors elsewhere; c) I wanted you to fix your errors before continuing to edit.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It is often assumed that if they can speak English competently then they can write competently, but I've never heard anything like "you cannot write English competently" before. So far I am seeing that you are talking more about it than anything else.

By talking about {{stop}} sign, I wanted to discuss that what you had thought. But I wasn't making those edits.(you must have checked last contribs) It was apparent on my talk page, I was assuring not to repeat. Otherwise if I was against dmy and engvar guidelines, I wouldn't have talked about it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal. This user does not seem to accept that there is a problem. This is crucial. The user keeps pointing out that he has not made a specific fault when it is being made clear that it is a more general problem. Keeps insisting those complaining are confused or wrong somehow Chillum 13:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not like I haven't accepted the problem I actually have agreed not to repeat the similar edit since last 12 hours. But the immense misinterpretation of WP:OVERLINKING is what I've pointed out. Possibly most of the conversation was based on the discussion of that policy but I am talking about my edits. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal of AWB – It is a bad sign when there is a long discussion of the correctness of someone's use of AWB. If AWB is being correctly used, it will be under the radar and will draw little comment. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal

I have (for the time being) removed OccultZone's AWB access. This is primarily due to the opinions ventured by experienced, respected and trusted Wikipedians, above, but also, to a lesser extent, an attempt to try and force OccultZone to learn, understand and moving forward, reassure the community that they can be trusted with access. My overriding feeling at the moment is that much of OccultZone's comments, above, have been made in an attempt not to lose AWB access, rather than to understand and respond appropriately to concerns and issues raised. I'm hopeful that now I've removed their AWB access, they will make an added effort to understand the concerns raised and respond accordingly. Nick (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: Surely and it seems to be better, at least for this moment. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

PS re removal of bit

I note Nick's comment above that AWB access has been removed "for the time being". Please may I ask that if there is a proposal to restore it, there should be a discussion somewhere about how well the problems appear to have been resolved?

AWB access is usually granted as a more-or-less technical request, but in this case some sort of review would be appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to ask that OccultZone inform us (those who commented here, and myself) of any request they place at the usual AWB request page, or they open up a discussion somewhere like WP:AN if it's agreed that's more appropriate. Nick (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. I suggest that it any discussion should be at WP:AN, and that the request should link to this discussion. Please could you leave a note at User talk:OccultZone to that effect? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have now also removed the AWB permit from User:Occults an alternate account to match the above conclusion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:36, 16 July 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.

Undue harrassment

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 there,

I've been harassed by Msnicki in a discussion of some pages I wrote. The issue began when Msnicki made changes to a comment I had written on a discussion page to make it look as though I had changed my opinion. When I re-edited the page in question to more accurately reflect my opinion and the state of the conversation, Msnicki messaged me to say that I had misused the term vandalism; that he/she was only trying to improve the formatting, but used profanity in his/her comment. I thanked Msnicki for the clarification regarding formatting proceedure and apologized if I offended him/her, but asked to refrain from using profanity. Msnicki responded with a condescending reply suggesting that I don't know all the rules to Wikipedia and that my arguments supporting inclusion of my articles were "floundering" because I didn't know what I was talking about.

I again politely thanked Msnicki for help in clarifiying policy and offering guidence but asked that he/she not use harassing or antagonistic language when addressing me, and that I had familiarized myself with Wikipolicies regarding criteria for inclusion and sourcing, as cited and detailed in the discussion page, and that if he/she wanted to converse, that he/she refrain from being rude or using profanity. Msnicki's response was agiest, bullying and hateful:

I've tried to be helpful and look how you're behaving, repeatedly squealing like a stuck pig that I would use the common phrase "give a damn", obviously just to be difficult and to try to put me on the defensive. Are you 12? Is your skin that thin? Never mind. I no longer care what you think. I guess it was going to happen. Msnicki

While I am a newer user here at Wikipedia, I think Msnicki's language & comments constitute bullying and are unwarrented violations of general policy for discussion. See the full discussion here [[45]]Froggie19Dude (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've notified Msnicki as you failed to do so. It is required that you notify any editor you bring up at ANI. It says so in the big red box at the top of this page, which also provides a template for doing so. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, is there some reason you linked the user's name 7 times? We got it the first 3 times. --Malerooster (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• There are very few things on Wikipedia that are absolute no-nos. Changing another person's comments, other than to use the {{redacted}} template, is one of them.--v/r - TP 20:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Just noting that the OP posted this to ANI, then deleted the post and recreated it as a mainspace "article". It was I who restored it here and speedied the mainspace creation. Deor (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Msnicki struck votes in an AFD in a manner we all do, as so they don't look like they are having two votes. No foul here on that point, and looking around I only saw Msnicki signing for him (properly) and nothing else outside of policy. And Froggie appears to have a undeclared COI, even if he denies it, but he hasn't been dickish, just persistent and using policy based rationales, even if some come up short. I will just say it looks familiar and leave it at that. Msnicki, however, has gotten pretty rude. Not sure if they are just fed up, having a bad day, or worn down. Nothing I would get bent out of shape over, but it is there on his talk page. This is all about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex, Drugs & Superheroes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Reddish, which are related, author and book, both put up by DGG. The more I dig around, the more I think this is something that doesn't need admin intervention and is just part of the normal push and shove when someone gets their articles (Froggie) put up for AFD and others vote to delete. No need for action. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The issue appears to be over this edit where Msnicki struck out a third !vote in an AFD. (first !vote, second !vote, third !vote) He left the rest of the comments unaltered. —Farix (t | c) 20:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Suggest 12 hour block of Msnicki. Msnicki's striking of the second !vote[46] was fine. Msnicki's merging of it with a previous comment[47] was unnecessary, and edit summary's accusation of "vandalism" was entirely wrong per WP:NOTVANDAL.
  The discussion on the talk is not a great advert for either party, but Msnicki's accusation of repeatedly squealing like a stuck pig is way out of line.
  A 69-edit newbie should not be treated like that by a experienced 6400-edit editor, and so I suggest a 12-hour civility block of Msnicki.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that there was an edit conflict when I wnet post save my comment, and I found that the discussion had just been closed by User:Dennis Brown as Nothing that needs action. I reopened the discussion, because I think the good-faith closure was premature, and that it is important not to let Msnicki think that this sort of conduct is acceptable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Why are you recommending that Msnicki be blocked? He only struck out the third !vote. It was Froggie19Dude who merged his own comments and called the strucked !vote vandalism. —Farix (t | c) 21:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    • BrownHairedGirl - I have to agree that you misread the chain of events. Froggie19Dude merged their own comments and called the striking of the vote vandalism not Msnicki. GB fan 22:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry folks. TheFarix is right: I misattributed the "vandalism allegation", and have struck my comment above. Without that, Msnicki was just being a bit rude, but not rude enough to require action. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
        • No harm done BrownHairedGirl, and I ended up nailed two socks (thanks to Ponyo) in the aftermath. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Thanks, Dennis. Maybe my clumsy misreading had an unintended good side effect :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Under no circumstance am I going to block or support a block for saying "squeal like a pig", anywhere, anytime. I've read through the entire discussion and I have extensively examined the edit history of Froggie. Froggie is not exactly a 69 edit newb, every bit of evidence is that they are an undisclosed paid editor. Msnicki was rude (I think I said that) but if you follow the whole history, you can see they were worn down. I closed it because it is pointless, as would filling at SPI because the paid editing accounts are so disposable and it is simply obvious if you look deep enough. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

CU note: Froggie19Dude is using FlashJudgment (talk · contribs) to create other promotional David Reddish articles as well as editing the Reddish article itself. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ponyo, appreciate the quick confirmation. I don't see a need to file paperwork unless you request to hang the CU on, but I will handle the blocks from this end. I'm pretty sure I know who the real meatmaster would be. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the blocks will suffice in this case. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've Indef blocked the OP here and his sock for sockpuppetry on an undisclosed paid account. As for Msnicki, again they were a bit rude but worn down. Unless this is part of a larger pattern, my opinion stands that no action is needed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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

IP Editor with a long history of 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.

---

Editor 115.186.196.242 recently made many vandal edits. I warned them on their talk page, then noticed a long list of previous warnings for vandalism. Here are diffs from the most recent edits which I reverted: [48] [49] [50]

The editor has many warnings already on their talk page LesVegas (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Normally, you should go to WP:AIV for vandalism, but I went ahead and took care of it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:59, 17 July 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.

Paul Singer (businessman)

I would like an admin to get involved so we can discuss a pejorative being repeatedly added back to Paul Singer's BLP [51], [52] [53]. It seems other users and I are in discussion gridlock on the issue (on Singer's talk page and on the BLP noticeboard) and need outside input from an admin because a consensus has yet to be reached. User Joe Bodacious continues to add criticism of NML Capital, a hedge fund Singer heads, as a vulture fund. The term vulture fund is a pejorative, is derogatory, and is misleading, with these sources citing it as such Huffington Post, Oxford Reference, and The Law Dictionary. Even on vulture fund's own Wikipedia page, the last sentence of the lead paragraph reads: "The term is used to criticize the fund for strategically profiting off of debtors that are in financial distress." A criticism is an opinion, and clear POV. We want to "avoid stating opinions as facts", as per WP:YESPOV. Wikipedia is not a venue for attacking a living person.

The term vulture fund is also slang, violating WP:TONE, which states that an article "should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon." The term vulture fund does not improve the BLP and provides no encyclopedic value in any way but instead misleads readers.

The term continues to be added back to the page before a consensus has been met. WP:BRD states that editors must "leave the article in the condition it was in before the bold edit was made." User Joe Bodacious was first to make the bold edit by adding contentious material to Singer's page. The content should be removed first and discussed. User Nomoskedasticity then accused me of edit warring when I attempted to remove the content. I did not in any way violate the three-revert rule that he claimed I was engaging in. Content disputes are not edit wars and we were in the middle of discussion. I simply removed the content to return the page to status quo ante, as it should be. I did remove the content multiple times, but not more than three times in a 24-hour period.

I propose this example, which is very similar: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act isn't referred to as Obamacare throughout the article so why should Singer's hedge fund be criticized as a vulture fund?

I'd like to hear your thoughts. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this report be at, maybe it is already, the BLP board? --Malerooster (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It is, but a consensus was not met and I wanted to get an admin involved. Meatsgains (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

But admins do not get involved in content ... the panda ₯’ 21:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you want them to do exactly? --Malerooster (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

To give attention and advice to the issue at hand. Meatsgains (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue at hand has been extensively discused at Talk:Paul_Singer_(businessman)#.22Remove_POV_content_from_a_BLP.22.3F and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Singer_.28businessman.29. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've already included the link to Singer's talk page and the BLP noticeboard above in my original post. The issue has been extensively discussed but a consensus has not been met, hence why I'm seeking involvement from an admin. Meatsgains (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It might help if an uninvolved person formally closed those discussions and determined the level of consensus. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This request is out of order in that it alleges BLP violation while admitting that the BLP issue has not been closed to consensus to start with. It is difficult to imagine that an editor holding a position which cannot be quickly dismissed by a consensus of BLPN could be violating policy badly enough to require any sanction whatsoever. And I think Wikipedia should be sympathetic to any editor who provides references to multiple well regarded sources. WP:BRD is not policy. If it were, an edit is not "bold" simply because you disagree with it. BRD is worse than useless if it is a license for any editor to lock down an article against any addition so long as he continues to argue. The one valid point the OP has is the one he didn't make - I think we should not say "is regarded as a vulture fund", but "was described in media reports as^[x][y][z]" in order to keep a certain narrative distance. Wnt (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Once a claim has been made (and obviously it has been made) that the term is derogatory, an admin should enforce the content staying out until a consensus to include is formed. That is the backbone of BLP policy.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you cite where in the policy it says that? Because the thing about consensus that everyone knows is that there is no consensus a lot of the time. You'd be allowing any editor to cover up anything that sounds derogatory. But Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the actual sources' coverage, not revise it and cover things up. Wnt (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I could, but you obviously know where this is. I should have said that there is consensus for the well sourced derogatory content to be restored. If it's this much of an issue, remove the material and start an RfC.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There are several problems with this request. Is it not considered a common courtesy that when forum shopping, you inform the participants at the previous forums that you are going elsewhere? Also, this is hardly a BLP issue unless you subscribe to the view that "corporations are people." But even if it were, the relevant policy would be WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which has been pointed out half a dozen times to Meatsgains and ignored by him every time. "Vulture fund" is almost universally used by reliable sources to describe NML Capital, and as the Argentina crisis continues, the number of such references is increasing almost daily. Finally, I'd like to remind Meatsgains of what it says at WP:CONSENSUS, that "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity." Joe Bodacious (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

One bone of contention with your analysis, is that the article is about a person, so BLP does apply. If we said that Heidi Fliess ran a whorehouse instead of a bordello, that would be a BLP issue.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not if multiple reliable sources also called it a whorehouse. Granted that is unlikely - most would settle for 'brothel'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I would be fine with either term, but would object to it being called a "health clinic." Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a BLP issue, considering it is on Singer's personal page. Shall we go with Two kinds of pork's suggestion, to remove the term and start an RfC? Joe Bodacious cites WP:PUBLICFIGURE while I cite WP:YESPOV, WP:TONE, and WP:BRD. At what point does a violation of one policy override a violation of another? Meatsgains (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are citing all three of those policies incorrectly. None of them give you a license to delete well-sourced material that you dislike. WP:YESPOV in fact requires that the term "vulture fund" be included, while also requiring that it be made clear that it is an opinion, as has been done. WP:TONE in this instance is irrelevant and grasping at straws. WP:BRD does not give you a license to edit war after you have run out of arguments. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Joe, even if Meat does have all of the policies wrong, let the RfC handle this and everyone else will get it correct. If you are correct, then the worst thing you have to do is wait for the RfC to end. You two should definitely agree on the wording of this before publishing the RfC. Make it fair to each of your positions then let the community decide.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I could see your point if the policy were not so crystal-clear in this situation. Meat is suggesting that there is some conflict among various Wikipedia policies that pertain to this, but I disagree and find them to be entirely consistent. I think this is a case of failed WP:Wikilawyering. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are correct, then the path of least resistance I suggest will prove you correct.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have launched an RfC per your request. When one is forum-shopping, what is normally considered the optimum or maximum number of forums? Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mehmett21

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.

---

Insistently inappropriate language despite warnings in Talk:Turkic peoples page (1, 2) and edit warring. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ps: User editing that page with a several IPs. I mentioned him in this page.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Saying the page "looks like shit" really has no action arising from it. They're also not formally edit-warring from what I see - 2 edits today, different areas if I see correctly the panda ₯’ 18:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:DangerousPanda We cannot say whatever we want. This kind an actions are not considered naturel in wikipedia. At least you should be warn him for his actions. By the way, I revert his edit. Please keep an eye on him. If he unrevert again, clearly that means edit-warring.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing in any Wikipedia policy that prevents someone from saying "it looks like shit" - heck, it's not even uncivil, based on the policy. We have policies that prevent you calling someone "shit"...but that's not what happened here. Let us know if they do the panda ₯’ 22:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• We can't say whatever we want, but we can say anything that doesn't directly violate policy. I agree with The Panda, we all are expected to tolerate a degree of language we might personally not like, as long as it isn't a personal attack or a pattern of long term incivility. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Though the language may be a little harsh, it does not violate any policies as stated above. It's the talk page, not the actual article where people read. I doubt the IP user will contribute again. Meatsgains (talk) 14:36, 15 July 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.

Abuse of "cannot edit own talk page"

I was blocked two days ago for 48 hours and went through the standard {{unblock}} thrust and parry. Upon hitting a snag on my GIS side project, I decided to do a bit of article work on my talk page. The blocking admin (Bbb23) reverted with the comment "you can't remove this while you're blocked - if you do it again, I'll revoke talk page access". Doing some looking into the matter, I wound up at Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings, which says that "declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block" are not to be removed (presumably so you can't fool the admins by putting another unblock request there, which I didn't, but Bbb23 had a hammer and I was a nail). So I restored my work but kept the unblock template, for which I was reverted by another admin (Ohnoitsjamie), who changed my block to add "cannot edit own talk page". Zuh? I politely emailed Ohnoitsjamie with no response. (Ironically, my block was in part for edit warring without discussion, exactly what these two admins did with me on my own talk page.)

I'm not looking for an apology. I'm just asking for better awareness of the issue and some sort of note on my block log that the change of block was bogus (since I know how these things can be used against me in future situations). Thanks. --NE2 06:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To my understanding, block logs aren't subject to subsequent editing or expungement, and using the block log to do things that isn't blocking or unblocking is rather questionable in my view. I also suspect that the reasoning behind the revocation of talk page access is more multifaceted than simply because you were using your user talk page as a staging area during the block. You had also removed a large amount of other discussion (which might have been relevant to the administrator reviewing your unblock request), your edit summary did not seem particularly civil, and neither of your unblock requests addressed the underlying problem that led to the block (they instead strike me as pushing the blame for edit warring elsewhere). Repeated spurious unblock requests are commonly used as grounds to revoke talk page access, as are uncivil comments. While I would not personally have revoked talk page access, I think it falls entirely within Ohnoitsjamie's discretion to have done so. Even if arguably wrong, I don't think it's so out-and-out wrongful that a notation on your block log might be merited. I would also point out that talk page access was lost for less than four hours; if outright wrongful that shouldn't matter, but once we're in judgment call territory, I think it's particularly relevant. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have also notified both admins you mention above of this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops - I just came here since I forgot to notify them. I'm pretty sure I've seen notes placed in block logs. PS: when I removed the declined unblock request, I also removed the open unblock request, and everything else on the page. If you can tell me how that goes against the spirit of the 'don't remove declined unblock requests' rule, I'll [insert demeaning thing]. --NE2 07:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Block logs cannot be annotated. The only way around that limitation is through a phony block or unblock action. What I find amazing throughout your block is given the level of your experience your lack of insight into your own behavior, let alone Wikipedia policy, which apparently doesn't apply to you. I've seen this kind of arrogance in some other long-term editors, so I guess I shouldn't be that surprised, but some acknowledgment of the part you played in the underlying problem would have been welcome. I didn't see it then and I don't see it now. As for my removing more than I needed to, when an editor removes a tremendous amount of material, including pieces they're not permitted to remove, I don't surgically determine what to keep and what not to. That's up to them. I just revert the edit. If they do it in separate edits, I'll undo only the offending edit, but, otherwise, it's not my burden. And, frankly, some of the crap you added to the talk page shouldn't be on a talk page, and the only reason you put it there was because it was the only page you could edit during your block, so I wasn't sorry to see it go. Your talk page during a block is to be used to make reasonable unblock requests, to discuss the block, and to discuss your behavior, not for you to continue editing Wikipedia as if nothing happened with your talk page becoming your own private micro-wikipedia. I can't speak for Ohnoitsjamie's revocation of your talk page access, but Ohnoitsjamie is a very patient admin, and my guess is he'd had enough of your attitude and abuse of the process, with the edit summary being the last straw. If you can't see any of this, so be it, but at least go do something constructive rather than coming to ANI and bitching about everyone else while ignoring your role ab initio. Oh, and just so you know, I don't even usually bother responding to these sorts of empty complaints, and it's unlikely I'll have anything more to say. I'm not fond of the endless repetitive drama of ANI topics, and this one has much less merit than many.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Big surprise. The abuser denies any abuse occurred. PS: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Recording in the block log. And where's the policy prohibiting working on an article on the user talk during a block? --NE2 08:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have seen cases where that has been done (in the distant past), but I'm of the opinion that it's become very uncommon and disfavored. I think it's to the point that the codified policy is out of step with the actual practice of the community, which is not to use the block log for such purposes. And even if it were available, I don't think it's ever necessary. And in cases like these, where there's no bright-line violation of policy by the blocking admin, it probably should not be done. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@NE2: I'm of the opinion that both admins who interceded on your page did so in error but there's absolutely nothing to gain by debasing the discussion with pointless and inflammatory comments such as "Big surprise. The abuser denies any abuse occurred". Protonk (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hang on. "Your talk page during a block is to be used to make reasonable unblock requests, to discuss the block, and to discuss your behavior, not for you to continue editing Wikipedia as if nothing happened with your talk page becoming your own private micro-wikipedia" is pretty out of bounds given my understanding of blocks and the policies surrounding them. Blocks exist to prevent disruption, not to send an editor to their room without dinner. If I'm blocked I can certainly go to the bar, visit a park or play a video game just as if nothing happened. Talk page editing is a privilege, technically, but there's no reason to magnify what was (IMO) an understandable error in enforcing blocking policy by treating it as a morality play. More to the point (and as I questioned below) what is gained by doing so? Prevented from using their page as a sandbox, is NE2 now less likely to disrupt the wiki when the block expires? What is gained from enforcing this policy to the letter rather than just saying "they can't influence anyone who isn't reading their talk page" and leaving well enough alone until the relatively short block expires. If NE2 were blocked indefinitely or banned I could see the purpose (even then I'm not convinced we have any strong impetus toward action), but for a 2 day block? Protonk (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• No issue above. Editors cannot remove things from their talkpage that are relevant to the current block, including discussion about it and discussion surrounding unblocks. At the same time, while blocked, the sole reason they retain access to their talkpage is to discuss potential unblocks. The above isn't even worth discussion - SOP was followed, unfortunately. the panda ₯’ 09:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have opposed this Scarlet Letter policy for years, and maybe this is typical, but applying it to mere discussion seems a new low to me. (I think in this particular case the block notice itself was removed, but this issue seems worth addressing in general) I knew that the admins were telling editors, some of whom are listed under their actual names, that they cannot remove the block template itself. But now you're saying that even third party comments on anything "relevant" to the block. This is material the editor could legitimately have removed prior to being blocked! Which raises the question, I suppose, of whether in the future admins or 'helpful members of the community' will pore over the archives of the blocked user's page to pull out every nasty or unfortunate interaction they ever had and reinsert it, just to be consistent with this idea! The problem I see here is that you're allowing an editor to access only one page, then laying vague and unexpected policies on him whose primary purpose is to be annoying. The block template itself doesn't have a "do not remove" text, let alone a "do not remove anything vaguely related". I feel like the definition of success behind a policy like that is not that the blocked editor learns a lesson, but that he makes his way down the greased chute to the indefinite exit without delay. Clearly admins notice when blocked user talk pages have been changed, so why not use or improve the basic tools to make sure they are seeing all the data, rather than imposing extra rules on blocked editors? Wnt (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• I will just add that there is a great deal of disagreement on what the talk page can be used for. Some say "only things related to the block/unblock", and I don't subscribe to that in the least. Anything "Wikipedia related" that isn't violating some policy should be acceptable, and policy seems to back me on this, as I don't see a bar to do such explicitly in policy. Obviously, we don't want soapboxing and such, but Wikipedia related actions and discussions are done all the time, and we we selectively enforce the "only talk about blocks" non-existing rule, we create an uneven playing field and an unfair environment for editors. We admin need to NOT be micromanaging the words of a blocked editor as long as they are not violating some obvious policy on civility, BLP or soapboxing. I do agree that templates must stay, but the community has said that other discussion doesn't have to, against my preferences. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• I was following through with Bbb23's warning to not blank material relevant to an active block discussion. I probably would've waited for Bbb23 to do the honors themselves, were it not for the snarky edit summaries, and the fact that the block was due to expire soon anyway. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Dennis is right - there is no policy rule or consensus that says user talk pages can only be used to discuss a block, and nothing that says that no discussion relating to a block can be removed. And when Panda says "Editors cannot remove things from their talkpage that are relevant to the current block, including discussion about it and discussion surrounding unblocks" he is wrong - or perhaps he can provide evidence for his position? Any admin sanctions imposed on an editor for disobeying a non-existent policy is an abuse of admin power. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• I should leave bad enough alone but what can and can't be removed from an editor's talk page has been an incessant, confusing discussion for years. To show how contentious it is, the latest is an RfC (not the first) that was "closed" (I didn't notice it until now) by an administrator who actually voted in the RfC (I just reverted - that oughta go over well). She actually refers to me by name because she thinks my position on the matter sucks. I'm not going to revisit the pros and cons of the policy or guideline (there's dispute about that, too). I find it numbing and it only serves to remind me of how much I dislike interminable Wikipedia discussions. In this instance, even assuming Ohnoitsjamie should not have revoked talk page access, it's no big deal. Given my earlier threat, I personally probably would not have done so, although that might have been based in part on the fact that the snarky comment was directed at me, and I don't like reacting to those things with tools. But if others want to continue this discussion for whatever reason, there's not much I can do about it. I have limited authority when it comes to the free-for-all known as ANI and AN. Knock yourselves out. I'll go back to clerking at SPI where at least for the most part my work is appreciated. When I come here, I wonder why I bother.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd like to suggest that, if the consensus on things like revoking TPA and non-appeal activities on talk pages is unclear, we should err on the side of not taking admin actions, particularly when they leave indelible log entries that, like it or not, others will judge on. If wrongly revoking TPA wasn't a big deal, then wrongly not revoking TPA wasn't a big deal either, and all other things being equal, we should opt for the latter over risking the former. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed. And honestly, it was a two-day block. How was Wikipedia protected by preventing an editor on a short-term block from pre-planning constructive changes for when they come off it? Resolute 16:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) This comment most likely will not help anyone, but I have just got to say that this is a very petty issue. In my opinion, while the block-related notices should not have been removed, Bbb23 should have referred specifically to what was outlined in policy, and NE2 should not have used the bad edit summaries. I don't know how much of this is obvious or not, but I just thought I should say something about this. Dustin (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• As with most user/user talk disputes, my overriding question is "why?" Why would two admins bother to intervene when a blocked user edits their own talk page, the second revoking access entirely? What was gained by that? We have guidance on not removing unblock notices, great. But the spirit of that guidance is bent toward preventing an editor from concealing past unblock requests, not preventing them from using their talk page as a staging area while they're blocked (which disallows their use of another page as a sandbox). Even if we stick to the letter of the policy, what good has come from reverting those edits and restricting talk page access?
• With respect to User:Ohnoitsjamie, in what universe is a snarky edit summary grounds for revoking talk page access? How does that come close to abusing talk page privileges while blocked? Was there some threat of future nefarious edit summaries in which NE2 might show insufficient deference to their betters? What abuse did you prevent? The beautiful thing about blocks is that for the duration of the block, you can basically ignore the blocked editor. If someone blocks me for being a dick, I can spittle and froth and curse on my talk page all I want with exactly 0 disruption to the rest of the project for the duration of the block. Unless I ping a user or add an {{unblock}} template, the only people who'll even know I've edited the page will be those already watching it. Protonk (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• An editor can edit his own talk page, while blocked, except for removing unblock requests. It is incorrect to assert that he cannot do any edits except for block-related matters. And he can remove material related to the reasons for the block, except for the unblock request, since it is still in the talk page history (excepting office actions or revdel.). This is on the same principle that an editor is permitted to remove warnings. It can be tempting to be overzealous to the point of becoming authoritarian disciplinarians who want to escalate the punishment if there is any hint of backtalk. Edison (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Except in very extreme circumstances, admins who block users should step aside after instituting the block to let other admins handle subsequent issues. Likewise, admins who block should make every effort to be available for consultation and discussion after blocking. Blocks should not be made for edit summaries unless there is some sort of obvious disruption that can be pointed to and, in that case, the blocking administrator should clearly state what that disruption is. This is the nice thing to do. jps (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Putting aside this case and just speaking generally, I often participate in post-block discussions after I've blocked someone. Sometimes it's to answer questions of the blocked editor. Other times it's to clarify the circumstances of the block for uninvolved administrators. Sometimes I accept an unblock request. Of course, I never decline the unblock request of someone I blocked, not because it's not "nice" but because it's against policy. Indeed most of what I just said is outlined at WP:BLOCK ("As part of an unblock request, uninvolved editors may discuss the block, and the blocking administrator is often asked to review or discuss the block, or provide further information. Since the purpose of an unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the blocking administrators should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked.").--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

That's all good practice, but I also think you should not have threatened to escalate enforcement actions against the user you blocked. To be clear, doing so is not contrary to policy, but I think stepping away from escalations of enforcement actions is a nice thing to do after you've handed out discipline. Simply asking another admin to step in would have avoided a lot of this drama. Have you ever been blocked? I think it would be instructive for admins to experience what it's like. jps (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking in general again: I think they key here is understanding a little about human behavior and basic psychology. If I block someone and they scream "You are a fucking dick!", I don't want another admin taking away talk page access. For that matter, don't ever block someone if they say that to me, I'm a big boy, I can handle being called a dick. Venting is a pretty normal process, and once we stuff someone into their talk page cage and they can't escape, you have to expect a little venting from many people. This isn't high school, we can tolerate the foul language when it is restricted to their own talk page. The best thing to do is simply ignore someone who is venting (I mean EVERYONE, not just admin), so you don't feed them and make it worse. They will calm down, just leave them alone, they are understandably frustrated, even if they ARE the reason they were blocked to begin with. And of course, they can talk about articles, as long as they aren't trying to cause problems by proxy. We aren't cops, they aren't criminals. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mind venting too much, particularly if it's against me. After all, I blocked them; it's not like I'm they're favorite administrator at the moment. I'm not crazy when they attack others, though, and the worst is when they show no insight into their own (mis)behavior. Everything depends on the circumstances, though, and my decision how to handle whaever it is varies. Although I'm not happy with the result on WP:BLANKING, one good thing to come out of it is greater clarity, so that will impact the aftermath of future blocks for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, sometimes it helps if EVERYONE ignores venting, but sometimes a kind word and a sympathetic note can be very nice for someone put in the cage. Even if it doesn't result in an unblock, just the very fact that there can be an interaction independent of the WP:PUNITIVE-feeling that one gets when one is prevented from using one's user account to change most of the database can do a lot more to help situations than ignoring cage-rattling or, (worse) threatening to send them to smaller cages. Each situation is obviously different, but I actually had an excellent exchange with an admin who blocked me once and, through that conversation, we reached an agreement whereby I was unblocked. It was a strange and beautiful thing. I gave the admin an award, but I fear that this sort of niceness is the exception rather than the rule here. Ho-hum... as I said, not specifically against policy, just a nice thing to have happen. jps (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, in this type of situation, I sometimes wish that instead of blocking a good-faith editor who has gotten over-embroiled in a content dispute on a particular page, and thus barring that editor from working on the other millions of pages as well, that an administrator could just direct the editor not to edit that page (or that page and any related pages) for a day or a week. Perhaps that would have been a better solution in this instance than anything suggested so far. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I, and I know of at least one other administrator, have often used this approach. You might be surprised how often it's met with resistance.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Because policy doesn't currently allow for it, outside of GS or DS. I've tried it once when I first got the bit, I thought it was naturally allowed, but it isn't. I apologized for the attempt. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume you mean that it was interpreted as a topic ban, and that is indeed one of the arguments by those editors who resisted. However, there are arguments to the contrary, but I don't feel like opening up that can of worms at the moment. One can at a time.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have argued before that a "Block User:X from Page Y" button would be a good tool to develop for both these situations and for the topic bans to replace the rather sledgehammer-like blocking tools that have been employed since 2001. jps (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've actually thought the same thing, as that is better than full protect or blocking when the problem is one or two editors and others are editing that article just fine. There is a chance for abuse so the policy that would allow such a thing would have to be crafted carefully, but a temporary "topic block" for a period of no more than say a week or two might be worth exploring. Even if it went into effect immediately but had to automatically go to WP:AN by that same admin for review, as a safety. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute the initial block. I did sort of ask for it by edit warring into 3RR territory and then reporting it at the 3RR board. (By the way, between the edit war and the block, we did resolve it semi-amicably, with the article cited in my block being handled in a different way, and the others sitting there as non-section redirects until someone else realizes they might be better as section redirects. So if anything the block was a bit late, but not exactly unexpected.) What I do object to is the ham-handed handling of an innocent removal of a declined unblock template. --NE2 05:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of admins have hands of delicious ham, as you no doubt learned. Some of them are needlessly rude as well, which it seems you've had a taste of as well. Enforcers gotta enforce and each do it their own way. Sorry you ran into Detective Callahan instead of Andy Griffith. Nothing you can realistically do or say will change that. If it happens again, try not to let some asshole on the internet ruin your day.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

At the minimum, Ohnoitsjamie owes an apology to NE2 for not carefully checking the diffs and removing talk page access for borderline comments. Calling the removal as "following through" another's action does not give you a get-out-of-jail card or immunity for being reckless. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel that I'm owed an apology. I believe that's my choice to make. --NE2 01:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Spam/blacklist issue

I was trying to create a new section at Football hooliganism's talk page, and I keep getting a blacklist warning, however I'm not inserting any links, much less the blacklisted site mentioned. Can someone look into this please?Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Two kinds of pork. That's happened to me before too, often because a link added by a previous editor had since then become blacklisted. I deactivated the hyperlinks [54] and it seems to work OK now. Voceditenore (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#New section triggers spam filter. Rgrds. --64.85.216.250 (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this has to do with the 'automatic' references sections that are added (see very bottom of previous revid). Because the references are now shown, the software now thinks they are 'added' and therefore blocks the save ..). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User Blackjack

That went as well as could be expected. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following user talk page - not for the first time, has made a threat. Here it is I may as well tell you this given your current attitude. Recently, one of the admins here sent me a mail to say that, finally, the police have been alerted to your activities. I'm not especially interested in getting involved with that but if the police contact me I will answer their questions. I would imagine there is a case for an harassment prosecution but then it's you that claims to be the "lawyer", so you tell me. If you end up in court or worse, whose time has been wasted then? It comes from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BlackJack/box1&diff=617269320&oldid=617232332 The users talk page is protected and I cannot post a WP ANI notice. This user has used many sock puppets and has previously been banned. An examination of these 2 users will show that he is, if you see the edit patterns, subjects and comments, the same user.Johnlp AssociateAffiliate - who was banned but 'mirculously reprieved despite several bombastic statements when banned.86.141.98.152 (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Looking at your recent contribs, I'm not impressed. Above you have made strong claims that an editor is a sockpuppet, so either substantiate recent socking it with diffs or other proof, withdraw it, or get blocked, because this looks like nothing but trolling to me. You seem to have a history of this [55] Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC) What about the threat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.98.152 (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC) I don't see that as a threat, I see him saying he doesn't want to get involved. Reread my previous post so I don't have to repeat myself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC) I see that the complainant here is fresh off a block for block evasion.[56] Specifically, a banned user named Richard Daft (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks Bugs, problem solved. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Ezzex

Sorry to escalate this to this board, but rather than edit war, as we are now, and I apologize for that, can an admin please ask this user Ezzex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to stop using the talk pages as a place to voice his views on the subject matter and the state of this project rather than improving the article per WP:SOAPBOX. I will not revert again, since this goes nothing but annoy me, but see [57] and [58]. It would be nice to have these comments redacted. I will go to this user's talk page and let him know about this thread right now. I also used his talk page to ask him to stop as well with little luck or feedback. I know that this might not seem like a big deal, but I really feel that it does poison the atmosphere of the talk page and is why many folks probably avoid this topic area, as I usually do and will probably do so going forward. Again, I will step aside at this point and defer to others. Thank you in advance, --Malerooster (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have informed the authorities here on Wikipedis about what have been going on here the last days. I will not tolerate that users remove my post on a talk page unless it's clearly offensive.--Ezzex (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ezzex, you can't accuse the project of "being a tool of Israel" or other comments about the ongoing conflict and who is right or wrong ect, just tone it down a notch, that's all. --Malerooster (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It was a reaction to all the israeli sources in the article.--Ezzex (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Rather than deleting wrong-headed and biased comments, it's better to simply refute them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Or ignore them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that several members and IPs that have written something on my side. All of them have, for unknown reasons, been deleted and the historic hidden by admins.

I will have my say on wikipedia, and refuse to bend to artificial debate-rules (who seams to be created more or less to shut people up). Some seams to be very eager to read these rules, perhaps only to use them as a tool against people they disagree with. I will not read them. They are in my mind more of a straight jacket than help.--Ezzex (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I remind you all that the article is under Arbitration Remedies which includes discretionary sanctions. Editors acting not based on the purpose of Wikipedia with edits like "It looks like its written by IDF. Much jewish crap" will find themselves sanctioned. If you are here to pick a fight, you'll be shown the door. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Which it is.--Ezzex (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly important to be able to distinguish between Israeli crap and Hamas crap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in ARBPIA, it's a revolving door. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ezzex - Cognizant of the fact that you have been previously warned on this topic (very recently, according to your talk page), I am going to strongly urge you to make sure that all of your edits on that topic are dedicated to the improvement of the article rather than promulgating or refuting an ideology. If you are incapable of this, my suggestion would be that you disengage from the topic area so as to avoid being blocked, which will likely happen very quickly in an area with discretionary sanctions in place. Go Phightins! 02:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Riza1234

Riza1234 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been repeatedly changing information at beauty pageant-related pages specifically Miss Universe 2014 where the user continuously changes sourced information to unsourced incorrect information despite receiving numerous warnings. In addition to this, the user has created unsourced biography pages for beauty pageant contestants with false information claiming that they won pageants that they in fact have not (ex. Nadine Stroitz). The user ignores all warnings they have received and continues to vandalise pages. Also, the user has previously uploaded several images with false or missing copyright information. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Doritoqueen

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.

---

Check his/her/its contribs: all blatant (and rather uncreative) vandalism. He/she/it is ignoring vandalism reversions, so a block ought to give us some peace. EDIT: Looks like that's a bit too late. Damn, you guys are efficient. Baconfry (talk) 16:13, 17 July 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.

Jeetpal Yadav

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

---

Article Jeetpal Yadav was nominated for Wikipedia:CSD#R2, after reviewing the references and quality of the article I revised it to Wikipedia:CSD#A7. But the contributer of that article removed the CSD even after several warning. For the same I informed him on his talk page and even on the talk page of the article, but he not responded me anywhere. It is requested that please see the case. As well as the rights given to @VQuakr: is questionable since he moved the article without reviewing it. Thank you! CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 13:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

An IP editor also removed the BLPPROD even though it was suitably placed. I've replaced this. Tutelary (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Frankly it was a perfectly good CSD:A7 (no claim of notability) and so I've deleted it. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 16 July 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.

• Followup note: I have just blocked the editor in question, Yadavjeetpal, as not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia; he has continued to insert his name into articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:User340 and TrueCrypt

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.

We have a problem with User340 (talk · contribs): He is engaged in gaming the system and bludgeoning the process in TrueCrypt article. He nominated the article for deletion on the ground having lost notability because of discontinuation, which is nonsense per WP:NTEMP. But apparently, 9 people having unanimously said so in the deletion discussion isn't enough. He has twice reverted the closure of the AfD instead of taking it to the review venue.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to create this report, but Lisa beat me to it. I note that this is an WP:SPA account where the users only actions are to nominate this article for deletion - and they did so manually, not via twinkle - an amazing level of sophistication for a brand new user (/sarcasm) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly a returning user coming back with a single purpose account. It would benefit everyone if a close eye was kept on this account. Chillum 17:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

And they reverted the close again. Can someone protect those pages and block him so we can move on with real work? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely with the understanding that they can be unblocked if they agree to stop undoing the close and head to WP:DRV if they believe the close was improper. The block can last 30 seconds or forever, the ball is in their court.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Actually, this is not the first heavy-handed destructionist treatment of TrueCrypt article. I believe a CU would be very much surprised by checking up User:User340. So, I'm not really sure forgiving so rapidly would be a good idea. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not that I'm doubting you Codename Lisa, but you need to provide diffs of previous similar activity. Just noting that there has been previous disruption in an article with 1,791 revisions and 747 authors isn't particularly helpful.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies, Ponyo; you are right. Please see Special:Contributions/TrueCryptEnding and Special:Contributions/Truecrypt-end. (Don't worry, they are short.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup, User340 is a sock of Truecrypt-end. I've modified the block to reflect as such and tagged the account.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:26, 17 July 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.

Two involved admins on MH17 article

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

---

• Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Reedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm concerned with the behavior of two admins on the MH17 article. Reedy created the article and has edited it extensively. However, when IPs were adding Russian sources, Reedy removed those sources saying "remove russian links", "removed load of russian refs", and "Russian references are useless on an english site". Despite other editors continuing to use Russian sources, which is appropriate per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Quoting_non-English_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources, Reedy then protected the article and violated WP:INVOLVED.

Despite the clear evidence of being involved, Ymblanter, who has also edited extensively on the article, has threatened another user with a block for pointing out Reedy's misbehavior. When I pointed that out to Ymblanter, he made a accusation against me w/o evidence. WP:NPA requires that serious accusations require serious evidence. I've laid that evidence out for Ymblanter, he failed to do so for me. He has since redacted that remark. But the issue of the threats and involved-ness remain.--v/r - TP 18:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Just bullshit. Get any evidence that I have broken any policies and then come back here. Concerning the accusation you have yourself some time ago admitted that you have been involved in paid editing. I have never ever been involved in anything close to paid editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you or are you not removing Russian-language sources from this article? If so, why? Non-English references are perfectly valid and always have been. While I can see some argument against using certain sources pending verification in an article that's about a developing news story, that they're Russian-language sources is not a valid one on its own. As to page protection, I see no reason why this article should be indefinitely semi-protected. Even if semi-protection were warranted, it should be for a definite period. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed twice a link to youtube which was posted as a proof that DNR separatists shot the plane down. (For the record I do believe that they did, it is just youtube is not a RS, and the movie did not even say this explicitly, it just showed a smoke column nd nothing else).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv - As far as I know, Ymblanter has not removed Russian sources. Only Reedy has done that. Ymblanter has only threatened to block users for pointing out what Reedy has done.--v/r - TP 18:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Understood; got it backwards. My apologies to Ymblanter for addressing comments to him that should have been addressed to Reedy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, not for pointing this out, but for persistently calling it vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like one of the admins thinks he owns the article. See my comments elsewhere about protecting it. 82.31.18.26 (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The protection of the article was entirely necessary - even protected, edits like this [59] have occurred, and given the evident lack of understanding of elementary Wikipedia policies, I have no doubt that protecting the article is the only way to prevent it descending into chaos. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi protect is not necessary for current events articles because there are an overwhelming number of eyes on an article to protect it from vandalism. If only a couple of incidents can be shown, then vandalism is not that serious on this article. --v/r - TP 18:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I can see the need for protection in spite of the eyes, but unless there is an emergency, someone not involved should have done it. However, since we are not a bureaucracy and IAR, I don't think having the wrong person do a protection should really cause any repercussion, unless some further malpractice can be shown. If he was editing through full protection in a dispute he was involved in for example (but that is not the case no?) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

TParis, having been involved with the editing of multiple rapidly-developing incidents involving large numbers of contributors, I can assure you that semiprotection is necessary if even a semblance of conformity with policy is desired - there is no way that experienced contributors can keep up with the level of editing otherwise. Take a lok at the edit history, and ask yourself how long it takes to check each edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. So, the reason for indefinitely protecting it was mostly laziness. Current event is going to be unclear for a while. Felt easiest. Please feel free to revert/change/whatever it. As for removing of the Russian references; it was a mistake on my part. And once brought to my attention that it was actually allowed (I had it in my head that it wasn't really), I stopped. They might be necessary to have un-biased article, but also when you have a conflict in the geographical area.. One blaming the other? Also, semi-protecting a page isn't going to stop a user with an established account editing, is it? Reedy (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FYI, this section seems to be under DE per WP:ARBEE. If people can't play nice with each other here, short term topic bans will be handed out --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Reedy - that seems like a reasonable response and I would've been happy to wait for you to give it had I not been concerned about blocks being handed out prompting my urgency. Thanks for responding. I won't remove the protection, I'm now part of this dispute and another uninvolved admin has said that he would protect it himself. So I'll just keep my hands off.--v/r - TP 18:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't protect. This kind of article needs multiple eyes and multiple edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection is a very very good idea here and should've been done as soon as the article was created. As far as the removal of sources goes, it looks like simply removing of non-reliable source which happened to be Russian. They were removed because they were not RS, not because they were Russian. The admins are not involved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There you go. I've just registered, but I can't edit it (yes, I know why!). This is crap. It's a fast moving article that has the potential to attract new editors, but no. The anti-IP brigade have moved in to lock it down for the usual spurious reasons. Well done! UniversalBowman (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, the kind of IP editors that this article will attract is precisely the kind that Wikipedia does not need.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

At this moment, there is no reliable source that can tell us what happened to the plane, other than the obvious - that it crashed in eastern Ukraine. There are plenty of theories and accusations being thrown around, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

High profile recent events are often left unprotected to allow for editing by a wide swath of interested parties. (For example, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 was unprotected for all but about 27 hours during the first three months after that crash.) This comes at a cost of some vandalism, but because of the high profile that vandalism is usually resolved within minutes. Of course, if things get bad then protection is appropriate (usually for a short duration initially). It's a balancing act, obviously. I looked at this history of the article prior to semiprotection, and I don't personally see much there to recommend protection. The most persistent dispute seems to involve the use of Russian language references to support some material. As noted above, such references are allowed though not preferred if an English alternative exists. I don't see why that dispute can't be resolved by discussion. There were also some low quality links added and removed (e.g. travel sites, youtube), but that's not a huge problem. And, of course any true vandals can and should just be blocked, though there don't seem to have been many. More significantly, Reedy was both the creator of the article, involved in the dispute about Russian references, and the one who protected the article. Notwithstanding the issue of Russian language references, Reedy appears to have generally been helpful as an editor. That said, I do think it was inappropriate for him to also act as an admin and make the decision about protection. He was very involved in the article and should have let someone else handle it. If it were me, I would have left it unprotected for now. Dragons flight (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above "Don't protect. This kind of article needs multiple eyes and multiple edits.". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a different situation. Highly politized article, international conflict, paid international internet commentators, propaganda war, crazy IPs, scores of banned users returning as sock puppets, history of persistent disruption on ALL Ukrainian-conflict related articles...... like I said, semi-protection is a very very very good idea here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I fully support semi-protection. We'll still have plenty of eyes on the article, and much less of the noise Volunteer Marek refers to. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You've both got it right. This kind of article has potential to be a mine field, a troll magnet. Let's try to make Wikipedia look savvy about things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's the policy [60], so kindly explain how this article is exempt. UniversalBowman (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule, protection should be reactive rather than preemptive. Using protection because bad things might happen, runs counter to the culture of openness that Wikipedia should strive for. As I said above, in looking at the edit history prior to protection, I don't see much evidence of issues that the semiprotection would prevent. In particular, a second look showed that most of the anonymous edits prior to protection were fine (with some exceptions). So, we have thrown out several productive anons for the sake of maybe a couple bad ones. Not a good trade, in my opinion. Dragons flight (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

As noted by others, this article is a breaking-news event and a part of the Ukraine-Russia hot-button topic area. It is bad enough when just one of those situations are present, but when 2 intersect there is no harm in a little extra security for a few days. If an IP editor or a non-autoconfirmed editor have legitimate editing suggestions, they cna be be made via request at the article talk page. Tarc (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Should users be threatened with blocks for questioning it by an involved admin?--v/r - TP 20:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: I am reacting for the second time, in case you missed the first one up the thread: I threatened with the block not for questioning the protection, but for repeatedly calling it vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Your threat "No. If you continue to persist, I am going to block you per WP:NOTTHERE." followed this comment, "Reedy (talk · contribs) made this page protected. I suppose it is just because of the fact that it was him, he is now the protecting admin. Can the protecting admin be changed?". Please tell me where the accusation of vandalism was in that comment that caused you to threaten a block.--v/r - TP 21:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The same user posted several comments accusing Reedy in vandalism. Note that after I threatened them with the block, they stopped.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a new user wouldn't understand our very Wikipedia-centric definition of vandalism. To someone on the outside, removing content that complies with policy without reason would be considered vandalism. It's only here that we make a distinction between intent. Vandalism is an appropriate term to the outside world. You should have explain what vandalism means here rather than threaten them with a block. Especially since you were involved in editing. Reaching for the block button should be a last resort.--v/r - TP 21:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• As I just said elsewhere (accidentally): Ok, hang on. A new editor tries some edits, has them reverted. They think that's considered vandalism (because many new editors do think that). They get threatened with a block for still calling it vandalism, even though nobody thought to tell them the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. Have I got this right the panda ₯’ 21:37, 17 July 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:Tigreroar

• Tigreroar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• reallynicehomes.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Self-promotional spam related to a real estate website (reallynicehomes.com). As for the edit into his user page (done this night and deleted per G11 after my tag), it seems that the user is an agent (or a director) working for this society. Well, after a promotional edit in 2008 (warned) he did nothing more still this night. After this "strange" edits about Julio "Koko" Sosa, he created its user page with that promo and added a promo link to that site into Clarksburg, Maryland. Two notes:

• Note 1: In 2008 user was warned for promo also for the article The Real Estate Roundtable. This edit doesn't appears within user contribs but, reading article's history It seems that the chronology was completely cleaned up on December 30, 2009.
• Note 2: I've searched about the death of Julio "Koko" Sosa and found nothing, apart this post in which appears a surname that reminds me to the one read this night on User:Tigreroar. Anyway, seeing again the "strange" edit on Sosa's article and following YouTube link, I found a surprise: uploader's nick has "that" surname and, below, you can read: visit us here: www.ReallyNiceHomes.com... And this could explain why only this edits were without a link to that site.

IMHO, the self-promo usage of Wikipedia seems to be clear. I would suggest also the possibility to add this website into the blacklist. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Added to spam blacklist. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 05:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• You've already given them a final warning, they don't have that many edits, 3 this year (2 obvious spam, one with subliminal spam). If they do it again, you can ask any admin to block but I'm inclined to just leave it alone and see what they do next. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Ok, I'll watch in case of reiterate spam. Greets. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mondolkiri1

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.

---

Mondolkiri1 (talk · contribs) has twice added completely off-topic material to Talk:The War Against the Jews.[61][62] Please note that the material he keeps adding has nothing to do with the subject of the article, the book The War Against the Jews (1975). I originally contacted the user and had a discussion with them on their talk page about the problem.[63] The user speaks English as a second language, and I thought we had solved the problem, however, they have not only restored the off-topic discussion, but they have expanded it! I am bringing this to the attention of the wider community because I feel I have done everything possible to address the problem per WP:NOTAFORUM. I can't imagine any scenario where this material should remain on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I left the user a strongly worded note. He clearly stated that his content on the article talkpage is not about the topic of the article. DMacks (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

That's correct. Even though the user has admitted the material is completely off-topic and has nothing to do with the subject, unbelievably, the user has ignored my warnings, ignored your warning, ignored this ANI thread, and has just added the material to the talk page again.[64] Please, can we get a block on User:Mondolkiri1 to prevent this ongoing disruption? The user has had many chances to change his behavior and has refused. Viriditas (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Level-4 warned for disruption. Leave a note here but please let someone else handle the cleanup the next step if he re-posts it so he can't complain about it just being you vs he edit-warring on that article. DMacks (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Ricky81682 looked at more history than I did and dropped the hammer. Looking myself now, I agree with that and his reasoning. DMacks (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It's indefinite which everyone knows doesn't mean permanent. Semi-legal threatening edits like this to very benign edits shows a lack of emotional competency for being here and it's not worth our time to deal with that. I pointed the editor to the systemic bias stuff so he sees the proper way to channel his focus. If he acknowledges my point, feel free to consider reversing it but now is not the time for people inflaming stuff for no reason (as if there is a time for that). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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

• I'd like to appeal on behalf of Mondolkiri1. He is a good editor at heart, if a little dense at times. Many of his problems come from the language barrier. Nevertheless, he does make good edits, and I find an indefinite block incredibly harsh. I really don't think that the warning templates were an appropriate way to explain to him what he was doing wrong. He didn't someone tell him properly, not just throw a template around. Given the language barrier, warning templates are really vague and unhelpful. As far as "legal threats", it is quite clear that that was a misunderstanding and not any kind of "legal threat". How can editors be expected to contribute if the policies as such are not explain? The idea of blocking him indefinite outright seems wrong. I could understand a week-long block, or whatever, but indefinite is just too much. You fellows need to assume good faith. RGloucester — ☎ 16:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I support an unblock provided he stop engaging in FORUM-like banter. He has attempted to say as much on his talk page, but I'm not sure he understands the problem. Maybe you could help him with the unblock request. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Mine was a custom-written non-warning-template message. It spoke with links in simple language (I think), directly and with use of his own phrases to avoid confusion. He may be a good editor at times, but if he's not willing to collaborate constructively and/or yield to community norms, this is not the place for him. I would not object to an unblock request that specifically addresses the article talkpage problem and his plan to avoid repeating it (but I'm not prepared to override the blocking admin on my own). DMacks (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Unblock granted. I hope I provided some helpful direction. As I said before, indefinite is not permanent but there wasn't really a time period that made sense (especially when there was week in between editing) to me if he didn't acknowledge the issues. At the same time, jumping into extremely tense subject-matter with such aggression and vitriol is not helpful and requires the utmost in collaboration skills. To be honest, you either get it or you don't (and he's been here for months so you should get an idea of why that's not appropriate). I didn't think a short-timed block without knowing that he truly has the right reasons for being here would have accomplished much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban requested for User:Overagainst

Overagainst has been on a crusade to correct what he sees as an incorrect POV in Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, which he believes should be changed to reflect that Van der Sloot did the crime, because, after all, Van der Sloot was convicted of a completely different crime five years later in a different country.

The particular section he is after at this point is is a section summarizing an article in Aruba's largest and oldest newspaper, Amigoe. He has taken it to WP:BLP/N twice, where each time he has failed to gain a consensus that the section relected any BLP problem: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive191#Disappearance of Natalee Holloway.23Amigoe_article was the first. By the time he had taken it to BLP/N a second time, no one would even bother to reply to him any more. It survived an FAR re-review with the section intact. Despite not being able to achieve any consensus that the section contains a BLP violation, he constantly adds tags and removes the section: [65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75]

This POV issue has been discussed with Overagainst to completely absurd lengths, at the BLP boards, the talk page (Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway#Side notes, Talk:Disappearance_of_Natalee_Holloway/Archive 8#'Amigoe article' section and refs 190, 191, Talk:Disappearance of_Natalee_Holloway/Archive 7#Continued from .27Van der Sloot kills in Peru section.27 archived page.

At his own talk page, we have this discussion, where he finally agrees to stop, an agreement he broke a few months later.

The level of ridiculousness this can get to can be found here, where Overagainst argues that we can only describe something as "unknown" if reliable sources describe it as "unknown", not that we can't find a reliable source that claims to know the answer, and here, where he attempts to create his own style for handling the capitalization of Joran van der Sloot and won't listen to anyone with familiarity with Dutch names.

I've pretty much had it. I don't see that having Overagainst involved with Natalee Holloway has any positive results. I'd like to see a topic ban of indefinite duration for Overagainst on any topic related to Natalee Holloway.—Kww(talk) 14:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes can read those selected old discussions KWW has provided but don't blame me if you feel your time is being wasted by being pointed to that which is difficult to follow and irrelevant.

The issue is very simple, there is a section of the article Amigoe article section that alleges certain discreditable behaviour by Natalle Holloway's mother and stepfather who are alive, thus making the section contentious BLP. The section only draws on one source, so it does not have multiple independent sources. KWW himself brought this up long before anyone else here_

"Renée Gielen subscribes to the Michael Moore theory of documentary production ... he doesn't lie, but can scarcely be accused of neutrality. When the Amigoe reports on his film, I don't think you can report on this summary the same way that you report on a straight news article.(Kww)

I didn't. That is why I was hedging with the "the article states" so many times. A lot of these claims have been floating around the Internet for two years, by the way. Let's see if they gain any currency now. Your edits are fine, I may sand off the rough edges to make it smoother later.--Wehwalt 13:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article more carefully. Looks like Amigoe is reporting on the source material, the interviews themselves. It does not sound like the film is ready yet. I've rephrased. If you think I'm off base, feel free to edit.--Wehwalt 18:42, 4 July 2007 ".

I think policy is contentious BLP needs multiple independent reliable sources, so I removed the Amigoe article section, giving my grounds in an edit summary each time. KWW keeps putting it back in and saying I am edit warring in his summaries. history."

The specific issue of the Amigoe section was taken by onlooker -George Ho to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard in Nov 2013 and the opinion which you can read here was "I would say that you can't really have a whole section dedicated to an article from a source that introduces new/controversial information without some kind of supporting coverage by other sources. In other words, there is an assertion that the article is notable and merits inclusion, and so that notability should be proven by demonstrating the existence of secondary coverage. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)"

I try to take this monosourced BLP section off and KWW puts it back. But an independent source is something beyond a single magazine's (Amigoe) reporting of hearsay in a documentary. Where are his independent sources?.Overagainst (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I love being quoted against myself: Yes, I said "Renée Gielen subscribes to the Michael Moore theory of documentary production ... he doesn't lie, but can scarcely be accused of neutrality. When the Amigoe reports on his film, I don't think you can report on this summary the same way that you report on a straight news article.(Kww)". That's precisely why the section concentrates on the Amigoe's review of the interviews used in preparing for the documentary, which were with people that are widely quoted in numerous sources, not with Renée Gielen, and not with material pertaining to the documentary itself. The material isn't monosourced, and has been largely supported by Vanity Fair interviews. Your trips to the BLP noticeboard have never generated a consensus that the material is a BLP violation. The issue here isn't the section itself. It's that you refuse to listen to or acknowledge any discussion on the article and are apparently attempting to win by simple perseverance as opposed to there being any merit in your position.—Kww(talk) 22:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Without comment on the merits, I've notified Wehwalt of this discussion as he is being quoted here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban: This is one of the worst examples of not dropping the stick I have ever seen. I worked on that article a little bit in the past and remember this user being a problem then. He's STILL at it?? The user's behavior suggests some kind of an obsession and given that I was last involved with that article sometime last year, if he's still at it, yes, time is overdue for the banhammer to drop. Montanabw^(talk) 22:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Sadly, I don't have time to read deeply enough into this incident to comment just now. A while back, though, (here and here) I looked carefully at User:Kww's and User:Wehwalt's behaviour on that article and found them to be both blatantly violating our BLP policy and lying to newcomers to the talk page about an imaginary consensus "in the archives" supporting their POV. User:AuburnPilot, Wehwalt and Kww are owning that article and really need to be sanctioned for their behaviour there.

I urge !voters here to look very carefully. Good luck. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Considering I have made a grand total of 6 edits to the article in the last four years, I'd greatly appreciate an explanation for your claim that I should be sanctioned and diffs pointing to my supposed terrible behavior. Note that only 1 of those 6 edits was content related (relocating a section), while the other four were reverts of vandalism or otherwise less than constructive edits (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

As for the talk page, I also haven't contributed to the discussion since 02:57, 22 August 2010 with the exception of a single head-banging-against-the-wall-stupid discussion with Overagainst regarding categories and the word "sensationalism" (see here). Note I quickly disengaged when it became apparent I would not be able to have a reasonable conversation with Overagainst. Please do provide some facts for your claims that I should be sanctioned, Anthonyhcole. --auburnpilot talk 02:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Overagainst has always been reasonable. You just don't agree with him. Your behaviour on that article's talk page has been less egregious than the blatant lying User:Kww and User:Wehwalt engaged in (at least I haven't encountered any lying on your part yet - though I haven't read all the archived talk page threads) but you have worked as part of a team to present the victim as a stupid loose slattern who got what she deserved and her mother and step-father in the meanest possible light.

Others thinking of commenting here should make themselves very aware of the background. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anybody could read the conversation I had with Overagainst and see anything reasonable in his contribution. Again, I ask you to provide facts for your claims. Your statement that I and others have "worked as part of a team to present the victim as a stupid loose slattern who got what she deserved and her mother and step-father in the meanest possible light" is an egregious attack. Please provide diffs to show where I and others have done so. I have spent countless hours contributing in good faith and do not appreciate such a libelous attack on my character and work. --auburnpilot talk 03:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, please do not worry about responding. This bullshit isn't worth my time and I prefer to remain in my happy corner of the project. I refuse to be drawn into such nonsense but sincerely hope your baseless attacks cease. Best, --auburnpilot talk 04:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I started a bit off-kilter admittedly. However, I brought up some legitimate proposed charges for the article in the last several months, because sometimes Wehwalt and/or Kww agreed to a modified agreed version of my proposed change being made to the article. Sometimes they reverted and I had to admit defeat. Sometimes when my edits got reveted other admins came in and insisted what I had removed from article was against policy, and took it out, like here. The discussions turned into into a boring trench war at times, but I can't take all the credit for that and it was no fun being up against 3 admins I can tell you. Anyway, there have been a few changes due to me pointing things out (some of the things removed were IMO indeed open to the interpretation that Natalle was a stupid loose slattern) and the article is better now than when I arrived. Kww, you do not complain that I misrepresent the tenor of your remarks in 2007 about the Amigoe article as a source. A report of what a know-to-be-polemicist documentery maker claims other people said might be permissable as part of the sourcing of a section of contentious BLP, if it was one of a number of sources which were independent of it, but such is not the case.

George Ho took the issue of the Amigoe section to BLP noticeboard, and he tagged the section on the basis of the BLP noticeboard opinion from Free Range Frog. From the section ref 191 "They also indicate that within a day of Holloway being declared missing, a medjet, unauthorized by Aruban authorities, had arrived on Aruba and had remained for several days. They further indicate that, while the purpose of the medjet was not even known to its crew and medical personnel, it was in fact to spirit Holloway off the island if she were found. Holloway's departure was to be covert and without notice to local authorities" the ref for this is 191 "a b c "The other side of the Holloway-case: 'Police Aruba hindered by FBI'". Amigoe. 2007-07-03". How can a jet land without permission, how can any interviewee in a documentary know what was in other peoples minds, and how can a single magazine article reporting on a documentary be sole ref for three seperate contentious BLP accusations being added to a Wikipedia article.Overagainst (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Except that it isn't about the views of the documentary maker, as has been explained to you so many times that the letters are wearing off my keyboard. It's precisely that repetition of misconceptions that you cannot be dissuaded from that makes me believe that you have no place editing the article. The documentary maker interviewed people that are widely considered to be relevant to the case. The documentary maker made the tapes of those interviews available to the oldest newspaper in the country, and that newspaper wrote an article summarizing the statements made by those notable people, not the filmmaker. Here we go again: the oldest newspaper in the country wrote an article summarizing statements made by people widely considered to be relevant to the case. There are no statements by a "polemicist documentery maker" to be found.

George Ho also later removed the tag, and appears to have only placed it there because you were swamping the article talk page with your issue. I've pinged him, and we can see what he says. You should also note that one single opinion by FreeRangeFrog is not a consensus: it's a single opinion by FreeRangeFrog.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

When something is BLP and may be challenged the sources have to be better than 'X said they know this is true'. What is presented in the Amigoe section are accusations about the the parents of Natalee. Yes, Amigoe may be a source that some people may have said certain things when interviewed. Going by your characterisation of the documentary filmmaker, he is not unlikely to have made what was said rather stronger statements by editing. Anyway, that things have been alleged does not mean they can be put in an article. There is the added concern that the accusations are making odd claims. How can a jet plane land without permission? How can interviewees have had knowledge of what was on the minds of Natalee's parent's? The interviewees may well have surmised certain things, but that is not good enough for Wikipedia to include such BLP speculations, even if Amigoe printed them.Overagainst (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

And once again, you demonstrate that you don't read when discussing. The Amigoe did not view the edited documentary and report the results that may have been made "stronger", they reviewed the interviews themselves. If you do not read what people write in response to your statements, there are no discussions, just these endless futile sessions of you repeating the same position constantly.—Kww(talk) 16:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It was you not I who said the documentary maker subscribed to the Michael Moore theory of documentary production, and was not necessarily neutral. Let us put that issue aside, each BLP allegation traces back to what someone said in an interview for the documentary, which Amigoe reported on. That may be good enough for a news source but not for Wikipedia. Can you understand why not everything that appears in a newspaper article about discreditable behaviour by living people gets in the Wikipedia article, unless there are other independent sources for it?_Overagainst (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is precisely that you don't read an understand comments that are made to you, which you have just repeated. There is no material in the article which traces to the documentary. None. You've been told that literally dozens of times. Yet, you constantly make arguments related to the neutrality of the person making the documentary. You've been told dozens of times what the Amigoe is, yet you refer to it as a "magazine" above. Ditto for your repeated failure to acknowledge that the interviewed parties have had similar statements quoted in multiple sources. The only conclusion I can reach is that you are not reading any replies, or, if you are, are not actually considering their content. If you do not read and understand the material being discussed, your presence in the discussion serves only to be disruptive.—Kww(talk) 19:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I was too blind and tried to be neutral. However to be honest, before FA review was concluded, I took no sides. After FA review was concluded, I got confused by the whole issue still. Did the reviewer overlook such issue? That's not the point. Somehow, battle between Overagainst and Kww has gotten tiresome, so I stayed out of it. Overagainst pointed out concerns about allegations on the possibly living missing person, but s/he didn't help by removing the content repeatedly. Kww abode to policies regarding verifiability, but... I wonder if the references are reliable. However, the issue regarding the BLP isn't the matter, as well. Regarding Overagainst, I agree that overdue topic-ban must be done now! As for Kww, I don't think he did wrong by re-adding the "controversial" content, which no longer matters. The topic (the disappearance of the missing person) itself was excessively covered by media circus, yet I don't believe that the "missing person" exists. Probably the work of Rupert Murdoch and his cronies. --George Ho (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a he. This is not an ongoing edit war over someone now legally assumed to be dead (Natalee). Some of my proposals have been accepted by Kww and Wehwalt. In some cases other editors (admins) have came in and agreed with me that long-standing things must be removed immediately. Those are improvements that would never have happened but for me concentrating on the article, which I have more or less finished doing. Most of what I asked for I've given up on. I am on to other things now.

The one thing I am still involved with on DoNH is the Amigoe article section. It makes allegations about living people, and my understanding is biography of living persons that contains material that is contentious must be removed if it does not have multiple independent reliable sources. If Wikipedia can reproduce allegations about living people simply because a single newspaper has printed them, then I'm wrong to keep trying to take the Amigoe article out. My opponents said in 2007

"When the Amigoe reports on his film, I don't think you can report on this summary the same way that you report on a straight news article.(Kww)

I didn't. That is why I was hedging with the "the article states" so many times. A lot of these claims have been floating around the Internet for two years, by the way. Let's see if they gain any currency now." (Wehwalt).

Well 8 years later, the Amigoe is still the only source for these claims.

WP:BLPSOURCES: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

Overagainst (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Stating your failure to comprehend arguments in bold italics does not improve your comprehension, and simply makes it appear that you are attempting to mislead people that skim the discussion. The allegations made by Renfro and Dompig have been repeated in various forms in multiple sources, and the Amigoe is not now, nor has it ever been, "tabloid journalism".—Kww(talk) 21:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment & Suggestion: I have been following this for some time after Kww posted it here at AN/I (my only intervention in the article was to restore text from what was clearly an edit-warring situation, [76]); this discussion also partially interests me since I have read much about Joran van der Sloot in Peru (mostly at the time of his arrest/conviction, due to the contemporary media stories).

That aside, there is clearly an issue here, but the WP:TLDR situation makes it too complicated for anyone to discuss (both in the past and present) or properly assess which side is right or wrong. The contention here is whether information in the article in question meets WP:BLP standards or not. I would recommend that independent experienced editor(s) assess the article (including the "Amigoe" section) and reach their own conclusion on the matter following the guidelines at WP:BLP (this would probably be best achieved at the appropriate noticeboard). As for this request, perhaps the correct action to take here is to recommend all involved editors (mainly Overagainst and Kww) to avoid commenting on the matter (including the article, its talk page, and BLP noticeboard) until the independent evaluation is complete. If both sides agree to this in a friendly matter, then the matter could surely be resolved much quicker and professionally. Otherwise (if this is to become more technical), I would suggest for topic bans to be placed on all involved editors until the independent analysis is complete; anyone breaking the temporary topic ban should then be subject to blocks and so on. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I sympathize, and will try to cooperate. I will point out that this issue is just one of many. Please read my opening statement again. It's not just this. Every issue in which Overagainst engages turns into this kind of thing, where he does not read the response, but simply restates his own erroneous opening position again and again, from wanting to invent capitalization systems to insisting that reliable sources specifically state "unknown" to his argument with AuburnPilot above to his insistence that JvdS should now be treated as guilty to any and every issue he encounters. Things certainly do go TLDR where he's involved and that's the issue. If the result here was to say that other people do have legitimate arguments with the section and Overagainst is topic banned, that wouldn't make me particularly unhappy. The issue I have is that Overagainst repeatedly makes the same easily-refuted argument and never varies from it. I will point out that this particular issue has been taken to BLP/N twice without there ever being a consensus that it has a BLP issue.—Kww(talk) 21:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

MarshalN20, OK I'll leave it all completely alone. As far as I am concerned it's now for others to decide in whatever noticeboard they think appropriate._Overagainst (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much to both of you. Considering both of you have accepted this, let me again state (for general awareness) that this is being done under the assumption that any intervention into the topic (while it is being evaluated) will result in another AN/I case (be it for a topic ban or whatever). I hope any uninvolved admin will take action in the future given the accepted agreement by both parties.

The next step is to take this to the WP:BLP/N and (if there are further issues, non BLP related, perhaps an RFC). If you both agree, I can post a neutral statement there for both sides. If this is acceptable, I please request that both sides first make your separate statements at User:MarshalN20/sandbox and use the talk page for discussion. I will then summarize both perspectives and raise it at the aforementioned noticeboard. This is the mediation method that I followed when writing the Falkland Islands article, so hopefully it works again as it did back then. Best regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 21:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that I won't work on the individual issue that Overagainst has been harping on recently, I repeat that it isn't the issue I brought to this noticeboard. BLP/N is not the venue to discuss the fact that Overagainst continues to indefinitely grind away at the article. The reason I listed diffs on multiple issues was to demonstrate the pattern. There's a reason I included the phrase "the particular section he is after at this point" in my description. Once this one is past, another will inevitably come up an result in the same interminable repetition.—Kww(talk) 23:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand that Overagainst's tagging and reversions have been disruptive in the article, but the diffs presented mostly relate to the same contentious problem: the Amigoe section. Considering WP:BLP is a very strict policy, there may be some consideration to his actions (assuming good faith). There may not be one either, but we don't know since the WP:BLP/N hasn't decided anything on the case. Overagainst above indicates he is willing to abide by the suggestion and avoid the article & discussion while an independent party of experienced editors analyzes the WP:BLP case. If it turns out that you are right, then the matter should be over (and any further disruptive editing on the subject would result in a very quick topic ban by the community). Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 23:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

As it stands now, the majority of editors whose opinions can be counted are in favor of a topic ban now (myself, George Ho, Montanabw, and Auburn Pilot). I discount Anthonyhcole's unsubstantiated personal attack as just that. I think you have misread the diffs if you see this issue as any more than an example of misbehaviour rather than the primary misbehaviour. I'll cooperate with the discussion, but would hate to see this discussion close when it is running something like 4:1 in favor of a topic ban.—Kww(talk) 00:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

On my "unsubstantiated personal attack":

• Regarding Kww and Wehwalt being liars, the substantiation is here (also linked above). It's a bit of a read, but, essentially, when new editors came to the article's talk page over the years, asking why it was named Natalee Holloway instead of the usual "Disappearance of ..." formulation, Kww and Wehwalt both repeatedly misled them that there is an existing consensus in favour of the former - when they both knew it was a lie.
• Regarding these editors' contempt for the victim and her mother and step-father, these things are hard to establish in one or two diffs, but take a look at this thread (linked above), which began with User:Newyorkbrad deleting a prurient intrusion into the later divorce of the victim's mother and step-father, Kww reverting him, and me reverting Kww; or this thread, where User:MastCell describes their focusing on the perceived sexual promiscuity of a female victim of violent crime as repugnant. Kww and Wehwalt are agenda-driven.

Regarding a topic ban for Overagainst: although his arguments have sometimes been weak, in those threads I've followed, his instincts about the behaviour of the named editors and about respect for living and recently-deceased people have been spot-on. I haven't read into the Amegoe issue that triggered this attempt by Kww to shut down an argument, but on its face there does seem to be a serious weight problem, and I hope, as others have asked above, that someone with brains and time will have a good look at it.

There has been serious misbehaviour on that article - misrepresenting consensus and repeated breaches of our BLP policy - by at least two admins. We all know what a time-sink it will be to properly resolve that, though, and I'm obliged to just let it ride because I can't afford the time just now. But if one of the perpetrators manages to have Overagainst - a genuinely neutral editor - banned from the article, I'll have no choice. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

1. I always said that there was "no consensus to move", not that there was a consensus not to move. You've been around long enough to know the difference, and to know that in both cases, no move occurs.
2. Your mischaracterization of language surrounding a no-fault divorce was vile when you did it the first time, is vile now and will continue to be vile into the future.
3. Your mischaracterization of me as a "perpetrator" is no less vile.

As for the remainder of your complete misprepresentation of events, my intentions, the article, other editors, I will take George Bernard Shaw's advice.—Kww(talk) 04:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a consensus to move. Until 20 October 2008, everyone who expressed an opinion about the title in an RM, AFD, or talk page thread, except you three owners, supported moving it to "Disappearance of...", and you were involved in most of those discussions, so you knew the score. List of those who spoke in support of the move up to 20 October 2008 (details and links here):

• User:DejahThoris
• User:KimvdLinde
• User:Grandmasterka
• User:User:Thivierr
• User:SqueakBox
• User:Crockspot
• User:Jmh123
• User:Edison
• User:SesameRoad
• User:Dystopos
• User:Robofish
• User:Dhartung
• User:Dougie WII
• User:Cuchullain
• User:J Milburn
• User:HisSpaceResearch
• User:Mira Gambolputty
• User:Moonriddengirl
• User:Avb
• User:Brewcrewer
• User:Baseball Bugs
• User:AjaxSmack
• User:Sceptre
• User:Karanacs

And yet, on that date you told User:Ilse@, "The naming has been discussed multiple times before, and the consensus has been to leave it here.[77]

In one of the AfD discussions you said, "Bad faith nomination by someone who's attempts to rename the article against consensus were reverted twice.[78] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Guilty of misphrasing twice in the last eight years. Mea culpa. Doesn't rise to "blatant liar", nor does it excuse the rest of your distortion. Your list above includes numerous editors that never came to the article talk page, and neglects to mention that the AFD was a bad faith nomination by someone that had moved it twice and was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:WatchingYouLikeAHawk. All of these little details you leave out in order to make it look like I'm an evil twisted being.—Kww(talk) 19:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a consensus to move. You knew it. You lied about it. More than twice. Shall I list all the times you told people there was no consensus for a move? I can do that if you like. And then I'll focus on your (plural) breaches of BLP. If you'd like this to play out. If you drop this for now, I will. I have other stuff to do. But if you want this to continue, I'll carry on. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line I see from reading further into the discussion (including the long history of it, based on the presented diffs & the talk page archives) is that this is a dispute between groups of editors rather than just individuals. The animosity clearly is beyond the content of the article in question, and the attempts at communication simply ooze out so much anger that it's not surprising barely any outside editors want to deal with this kind of problem. I don't think even trying to understand why this faction war is taking place will help; at this point it's just arguing for the sake of hating each other's guts.

The clear conclusion here is that neither side is innocent of misbehavior. If both of you want to go down to practicalities (without sugar-coating any of the events), then, yes, Wehwalt was misleading in his comment about the article title consensus, and Kww was wrong in stating that there was a consensus when there was none. Their side of the dispute has also been very blunt and uncooperative when it comes to having some heart for a missing (probably deceased) girl and her living family, and there has been some considerable article ownership problems. As for the other side, the intention is generally to anger the other users and take discussions into long, boring, and unreadable lengths; and that's without forgetting to point out the blatant uncivil name-calling (although the insults are bilaterally flowing, some more sophisticated than others). This side of the dispute is characterized by being overly sensitive about the victim and her family, and very much against Joran van der Sloot. At the end of the day, all of your discussions apparently turn into battlefields, and all of you end up looking like a bunch of jerks and cynics.
If you want to resolve this issue professionally, all of you seriously need to disengage not just from the article but also from each other. You've all placed yourselves in a position where the boomerang will strike, some harder than others. Please write all you need to write at User:MarshalN20/sandbox, and allow me to take this to WP:BLP/N so that uninvolved editors can have a proper analysis of the case. Kww and Overagainst have already added material into it, which is a good sign from their part, but further contributions are still welcome. While ultimately this places the outcome of the situation out of your hands, further disruptive editing and antagonism is only going to take the lot of you to WP:ARBCOM; and whatever ends up happening there is about as dangerous and random as being forced to play Russian roulette. Take your pick. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 00:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral I'm not opposed to the topic ban, and Overagainst certainly has done enough to bring that upon himself at this point; however, if the editor is willing to cooperate and allow third-party editors to analyze the article, I cannot support it either. I'd willing to support this if editors at the WP:BLP/N had reached a consensus and Overagainst disrupted the article against such a consensus. Regardless of how this turns out, I'm still willing to help out clear up the matter at the BLP noticeboard. That said, I enjoyed reading the article (not so much the talk page, but overall well worth it). Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Kww's complaint above says, The level of ridiculousness this can get to can be found here, where Overagainst argues that we can only describe something as "unknown" if reliable sources describe it as "unknown". Elsewhere, Kww takes the opposite position, edit-warring without consensus to remove material on the grounds that the sources don't specify "unusual" with exactly the wording that he seems to require. This therefore seems to be a case of WP:POT and so I oppose the proposed topic ban unless it applies to all such ridiculous reasoning. Andrew (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick block needed

• 82.102.15.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

IP is posting huge amounts of who-knows-what at User:Bilby. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• That is...a lot of text. Blocked. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• There's a bunch of emails there. Is that stuff that needs to be revdel'd? Protonk (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I don't know if it needs revdel, but I see from the page history that it has been attacked before, and revdels occurred in November 2013. I tried to Google text copied from the first few lines of the post because I thought knowing where it came from might identify areas that needed attention here. Amusingly, Google gave User:Bilby as the only hit, and that was about 40 minutes after the text had first been posted. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks like inaccurate info (IP listed as Luxembourg is actually in Lethbridge, etc). But there may be real people / real email addresses therein for all we know, and like Johnuniq says, they're showing up on Google search. I have revdel'd -- Diannaa (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks to all for taking care of that - it was one of the more unusual attacks I've seen. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous editor at 80.181.225.114 changing English terms back to French

There is a disruptive, contentious editor at IP 80.181.225.114 who is reverting my attempts to anglicize some French terms in France-related articles. Some links:

• User_talk:80.181.225.114 – Other editors' comments here as well.
• revert of my edit anglicizing French terms There are four others like this on similar articles; see the IP user's contributions below:
• IP user's contributions – Note the contentious edit summaries.

I'm not sure if I have raised this issue in the proper place or way. Please let me know if I should take a different approach. Thanks. Eric ^talk 23:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Errrr...you were WP:BOLD and it was reverted. That makes it necessary for you to obtain WP:CONSENSUS for your changes. My understand is that on France-related topics, the consensus is to use the words such as départemente on all related articles the panda ₯’ 23:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. That is not the consensus, though it has been put forth by some editors. Long back-and-forth "discussion" on that topic here if you're curious. Eric ^talk 00:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't "long" and it's also 7 years ago the panda ₯’ 00:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Long enough to make my eyes roll--and I was part of it. And the meaning of the word department has not changed in many times seven years... Eric ^talk 01:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Good morning, here my comments. I think that this IP follows the typical pattern of a disruptive editor. On Italianization, he kept removing the adjective "many" from a sentence about Italian concentration camps, pretending that it was unsourced. When I wrote him that the sentence is very well sourced (the source being a list showing 135 camps and coming from an Italian book), he reverted again telling me that "many" is anyway subjective, and challenging me to add up all the camps and put the number there. On South Tyrol, he contested the origin of the region's name, writing that the name's origin comes from the opinion that the country originated from the southern part of Tyrol. Now, all this could be acceptable if he had used the respective discussion pages to write what he thinks, but he goes there very grudgingly, and reverts also when the discussion has started, as he did in South Tyrol after the intervention of User Mai-Sachme: the same did on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) (a guideline page). I think that starting an edit war per article is not a very good beginning for a new user. Alex2006 (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

24.56.15.29 edits to I Wear Your Shirt

I wrote at User talk:24.56.15.29:

Please stop changing "Kelly and Steve Sadler" to "Kelly and Vincent Stein" in the article I Wear Your Shirt, which you did 9 November 2013, 3 January 2014, 3 January 2014 again, 1 June 2014, and 4 July 2014. Your change contradicts the article from The Leader (http://www.webcitation.org/5l7u87VZ1). If you can find a reliable source that verifies that "Kelly and Vincent Stein" are the parents of I Wear Your Shirt's founder, please provide it on Talk:I Wear Your Shirt. Otherwise, further edits like this to I Wear Your Shirt will lead to a block by an administrator. Cunard (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

24.56.15.29 made the change again at 20:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC).

I am not posting this at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism because that noticeboard says:

The warnings must have been given recently and the users must be active now, especially for unregistered users.

The user is not active right now.

Would an admin review this and block 24.56.15.29 for a lengthy period of time? 24.56.15.29 appears to be a static IP since the IP has been making the same incorrect edits since November 2013, eight months ago. Cunard (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If the IP is not active then there is no reason for action. Chillum 06:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP has made the series of incorrect edits to I Wear Your Shirt on the following days: 9 November 2013, 3 January 2014, 3 January 2014 again, 1 June 2014, and 4 July 2014. Although the IP has not been active within the past hour or day, the IP has been used by the same person since 9 November 2013 to make incorrect edits.

I am asking for a lengthy block (perhaps six months) to stop the IP from continuing to vandalize I Wear Your Shirt.

I am frequently inactive for long periods of time, so the IP's subtle vandalism to the article can be uncaught for nearly five months. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't do long term ip block except under the most extreme circumstances. 6 edits over the course of a year does not warrant a 6 month block. If they become active again we can block, though I doubt it will do any good as the person just edits once and goes away for weeks. Just revert and ignore.

I have added the ip's talk page to my watchlist. Chillum 06:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Six subtle vandalism edits by the same person over eight months does warrant a six-month block to protect the encyclopedia. Especially since no constructive edits have been made from the IP.

Watching the IP's talk page does no good. Watching I Wear Your Shirt would be more effective in reverting the subtle vandalism. Cunard (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps another administrator agrees with you. I do not think it warrants a block at this time. Chillum 13:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I gave a blunt final warning. Here, I agree with Chillum. If he came back as soon as this week, I might hit it for 2-4 weeks for having 4 vandal edits in 6 weeks, but no way would I jump to six months this early in the abuse cycle. Really an AIV issue. Frustrating, I know, but it is the system we all agreed to. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Frustrating, I know, but it is the system we all agreed to. – I did not agree to a system where I'd stand by idly while an IP inserted into an article BLP-violating information (that a person was born to his mother and a man who is not his father).

The reason I requested a lengthy block of the IP was to put a stop to the vandalism edits, one of which was uncaught for five months.

Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) and Chillum (talk · contribs), I will consider the matter resolved if one or both of you watchlist I Wear Your Shirt in case the article is vandalized again to avoid vandalism being uncaught for five months. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've already watchlisted it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Urgent - talk page abuse

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

---

Can an admin please revoke blocked user Fatty les's talk page access, and then RevDel this mess of personal attacks? Thanks! —LucasThoms 04:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Especially revisions starting at 04:37. —LucasThoms 05:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I outright just deleted the talk page, and re-blocked with access revoked. There was nothing salvageable there and too many revisions to delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)FreeRangeFrog took care of it, but before we close this, the sockmaster has had a plethura of recent socks targeting me and several others with BLP Vandalism involving Maria Sharapova. Forgive me if I don't know this aspect of policy terribly well, but is it possible for a CU to toss a lengthy block on the underlying IP? ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you're looking for a WP:RANGEBLOCK? —LucasThoms 05:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoety did it before, I know range blocks are terribly limited in scope and length as there is much collateral damage when it comes to their use. I'm more requesting the most common IP that the CU sees involved in the creation of these socks be blocked for a lengthy period of time. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(Don't you just love triple edit conflicts?) At some point during that talk page fiasco, FL either signed out or used his/her phone to insert the same vandalism to his/her user talk page. That IP WHOIS's to a mobile phone operator, for what that's worth. I'm not certain how 3G IP assignment works; I have no idea what kind of collateral that would have, or even if that is the underlying IP.—LucasThoms 05:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not know, from what I can find online, mobile IPs are fluid. If that is the case, well just have to deal with Evlekis socks just like JA socks: revert, redact, block, repeat. However, if an enterprising admin (NawlinWiki pointing at you!) could go into the deleted revisions of all the various socks, note the BLP vandalism common to most of them and make a few edit filters, that might help too. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

We have another one it's already been revdel'd and blocked but still it's an ongoing problem. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, I've just silverlocked Solarra's talkpage, before seeing this discussion. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how effective it will be, but a range has been blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:08, 18 July 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:Mario252

Hello I come here, because really this case is a bit complicated, you mentioned falls in constant edit wars only for wanting to add irrelevant information. Try to explain in discussion and just ignore the messages that leave you, I'm starting to believe that this is WeirdPsycopath locked user, since the two accounts edited in the same way, at least not quite understand how to request a verification of account.

Diff

• Lo que la vida me robó: Your issue is irrelevant in this article, I explain in their discussion and what all it does is ignore my messages
• His only edit summary in the article "Lo que la vida me robó" these have been: Relevant information for Erika Buenfil (Televisa). Jorge Horan, Chema, Milán...¿Quién eres tu?
• Osvaldo Benavides, This money all content, giving in your edit summary "irelevant informations
• Mi corazón es tuyo, This article also try to do the same

About the article "Lo que la vida me robó" explain it 2 times and the only thing the user does is ignore my messages. Do not know which is the problem of this person, but at all attempts to communicate or reach consensus on anything.--Damián (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I also want to add this message left by WeirdPsycopath in discussing Mario [79]. I also add the user deletes the messages left for me, because I do not know why or why you do this.--Damián (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that the blocked editor User:WeirdPsycopath is the same person as User:Mario252. Same style of editing and the same interests. Caden ^cool 00:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't have time to fully investigate, but if you look at this: [80], you see all the articles they have in common, which is extraordinary considering how few edits Weird has. Find two edits in one of those articles where they are doing exactly the same thing, or helping each other edit war, you likely have a winner when combined with other factors. Old fashioned SPI investigating stuff. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe they are the same person, because it is very strange that both defend the same point. What is clear that this person brings days falling in edit wars, ignores messages are left in their discussion which was also WeirdPsycopath and even delete messages from your discussion to erase any evidence, it is clear that the user reads all messages that have been left in their discussion, but ignored. I've reversed several articles and even I explained that revierto editions, but it does not seem to care.--Damián (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This editor rarely uses an edit summary and has ignored repeated requests (even one from me in English and Spanish) that he engage in discussion regarding his contested edits. We know he is aware of these requests because he regularly deletes them from his user talk page. He has made 342 edits to article space but none to article talk space. Perhaps a topic ban is in order if he is unwilling to engage in discussion? Gamaliel (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Damián80 filed a report at WP:AN3. They didn't notify Mario of the report. No one has notified Mario of this report. I know Mario deletes everything put on his talk page, but still ... I've notified him of both.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I prefer not to leave messages on your discussion, because simply ignores and deletes.--Damián (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Preference or not, it's a requirement. I prefer not to pay taxes, but sadly... the panda ₯’ 23:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Mario252 for edit warring. No prejudice to this discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Carriearchdale abusing her talk page while blocked.

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

---

See these edits:

A contributor, Vin09, posts a question regarding a proposed merge, not knowing that Carriearchdale is blocked. [81]

User:John Carter points out that Carriearchdale is blocked, and can do nothing. [82]

Carriearchdale deletes John Carter's post, and asks that Vin09 contacts her by e-mail. [83]

Give that discussing merges (or anything else concerning content) while blocked is contrary to policy, I suggest that Carriearchdale's talk-page editing privileges should be revoked. Nothing on her talk page indicates that she has any intention of either appealing the block, or accepting responsibility for the behaviour that led to her being blocked in the first place, [84] and accordingly there is no merit in continuing to allow her access to her talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Lolwut. Discussing content while blocked contrary to policy? I think not. --NE2 00:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Notified her. —LucasThoms 00:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've been watchlisting her talkpage since the block - she almost pushed the envelope once, but mindless chatter doesn't seem to warrant removal ... yet. She should, however, pay attention to the sage advice rather than simply delete it the panda ₯’ 00:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It definitely looks to me that she has been soliited for effectively editing while blocked which isn't good, and appears to be willing to effectively meatpuppet that user, which is worse. Repeating the "seven year" claim in her edit summary doesn't help.John Carter (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

From her talk page:

I would say that equating his verbose and evilly creative attempts at translation of the actual meaning of the exact statement I typed in message to vin09, "Please email me any help requests by clicking email user in the left column of the talk page here," with intention of what statement meant would be impossible. It is quite difficult to understand how user john carter knows exactly what meant when I typed those nineteen words. How about keeping all the casting of aspersions to a minimum this time!!! To quote Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

—LucasThoms 00:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• In my opinion: That is proxy editing, which is problematic for an indef blocked editor. We've tolerated it from temp blocked users when asking if someone would fix a few things for them, which I think is harmless and improves the encyclopedia, plus puts them in the right frame of mind to be unblocked. However, proxy editing from an indef blocked editor should only be tolerated to a degree, to fix pre-existing issues, but not if it becomes an ongoing way to bypass the block itself. We can be generous without being fools. If someone decides to NOT seek an unblock, then how they are using it falls under greater scrutiny and eventually the clock simply expires. Then it becomes a webhost and a way to bypass the block. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe disable e-mail? John Carter (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Give that discussing merges (or anything else concerning content) while blocked is contrary to policy..." When did this policy change occur and where do I go to revert it? Protonk (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah I had a WTF? moment there too, clearly if you're asking other editors to proxy for you whilst blocked then that's not happening, but discussing it? Black Kite (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah - I could have worded that better, though I've seen it said often enough that blocked users get talk page access solely to permit appeals. Anyway, it was the combination of removing John Carter's post and then asking for e-mail that looked dubious, and it certainly carried the implication of proxy editing - or at least of engaging in a discussion that has the potential to involve someone in unwitting proxy edits. I can't see a legitimate reason why Carriearchdale would want someone e-mailing her not to know that she was blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• "I've seen it said often enough that blocked users get talk page access solely to permit appeals" I don't see it anywhere at WP:BLOCK. Is anywhere else in policies which relate to blocking? Protonk (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"Sufficient unto the day" applies here - unless you have direct material connecting her to an improper edit, this is all mental youknowwhat. Unless, of course, you have the means to examine the emails - but I suggest that is overreaching a tad. This is absolutely "have a cup of tea" territory IMO. Collect (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I took care of the user's request myself, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing something off wiki. Maybe it's more convenient to chat through email than on her talk page (which multiple users say that that's "privilege abuse" anyway). The other user just wanted advice on a merger (and giving advice is not editing by proxy) which I gave anyway, therefore I don't see the point of this discussion? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we should just let it be, using their talk page in such a manner does not violate policy that I would see, and if there is some such policy that does apparently prohibit such things; let me know so I can spearheard the RfC to change it. Also, while we're here, I'd like a review of other editors editing her userpage to remove revoked rights, as well as correcting an 'apparent error' of join date so to speak. [85] and [86] which I've reverted the latter. Tutelary (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see why you think that allowing an editor to deliberately misrepresent their Wikipedia status is a good thing. BMK (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

How is she "deliberately [misrepresenting]" the fact that she's blocked if she hasn't deleted the big and colorful "YOU HAVE BEEN INDEF BLOCKED" notice? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand, we're talking about the userbox on her user page which says that she has been here for "6 years, 7 months, and 27 days", when in fact, although she created the account then, she only began editing on January 3 of this year, making her time as a Wikipedian actually 6 months and 15 days. That is deliberate misrepresentation, which, unfortunately, is just par for the course for this editor. For instance, she trumpeted that she was an active participant across 38 WMF projects, whereas the truth was that in the majority of those projects, she had done nothing more than create a userpage. She's deceptive, and seems to have no hesitation to tell the Big Lie again and again. BMK (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, this thread is about her "abusing" her talk page, and one of the given examples is of her deleting a message from another user that stated she was blocked, so sorry for not realizing you were talking about something else. To address what you're talking about, the template doesn't specify the date as being the registration date or the first edit date, so it's up to the individual user to input the date. So what if she didn't make an edit until seven months ago? She still registered seven years ago, and it's perfectly fine for her to showcase that. I registered almost two years ago and only made a handful of edits, then nothing until this January. If someone vandalized my user page by changing my User Wikipedian For userbox, I'd be furious. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Unethical? Sure. Against a policy or guideline? Pretty sure no. There are a lot of people who exaggerate what they do on userspace, and there was a Wikipedia controversy for a person who did so. (I'll let you Google that one.) What I'd like to review is the application of policy/guideline towards correcting these supposed mistruth's she's stated. I don't think there is, which is why I reverted. Tutelary (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think one core policy, WP:IAR, covers it just fine. WP:BURO, you know. BMK (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

amazing what passes for arch-villany these days. Protonk (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So, in your book, all enforcement of rules and policy must rise to the level of "arch-villainy" in order to be dealt with? Seems rather limiting, doesn't it? BMK (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No, but deliberate misrepresentation is just trumping up what should either be ignored or laughed at. They say they've been an editor for 6 years but they didn't make any edits for 5.5 of those years! Get the fainting couch! Absent evidence of proxying, what exactly are we doing here except feeding the ego of a blocked editor? Protonk (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I just realized why her behavior bothers me: she a bully who, when she is cornered, plays the victim and claims everyone else is bullying her. That kind of thing really annoys me, in real life, in politics, and on Wikipedia. I suppose you're right and that the best thing to do is to apply liberal amounts of WP:DENY, but it just rubs me the wrong way. BMK (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand the impulse but if they're blocked (not banned), DENY is mostly about ignoring what they're putting on the talk page. Not saying this editor is a troll, but DNFTT should be the order of the day (IMO). I don't want us to start normalising the practice of heavily policing blocked editors on their talk page because A: It's a waste of time for all involved, B: it's likely to eliminate any hope of an indefinite block being shortened in the future and C: it leads us to treat blocks more like time-outs where the editor has to sit and think about what they've done and not technical measures to prevent disruption. The last point mostly applies to timed blocks, but enshrining the practice for indeffed users makes it easy for us to mentally apply it to any blocked editor. Protonk (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I always thought the arrogant, dismissive, self-aggrandizing imperious attitude was the most off-putting aspect I saw, along with the very doubtful grasp of apparently many policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

All the point I'm trying to make is that if they want to feel the top of the world and want to think that she's been on that much and on that date, even if in context it's totally wrong, we should let her do that. You have every right to judge her for it but editing a person's user page (especially in this case when the editor does not like it) is a very dangerous road to thread absent speedy deletion criteria. Tutelary (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from preaching at me. Thanks. BMK (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You cannot use your talk page during block other than requesting unblock. That was one of the reason why Fram had revoked talk access of Russavia, or any other instance where user has used talk page for discussing content. I don't really agree with Sturmgewehr88, changing dates wasn't vandalism even according to its own definition. User had been active since 2014 not 2007 or 2008. It may have made sense if Carrie had written "I registered in 2007", "Active since 2014". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• "You cannot use your talk page during block other than requesting unblock" As I asked above, when was this policy implemented and where can I go to revert it? Because it's bananas. Protonk (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No, this user is not abusing their talk page, although I understand the argument. Blocked users can apparently use talk pages to initiate content discussions. I was just in a discussion where a blocked user was using their talk page to ping people to discuss content and category deletion discussions. Apparently that's not considered block evasion, so I can't see how this user would be guilty of it. I think Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Blocked_users can be interpreted strictly or loosely, but it's probably ultimately administrator discretion.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:UNBLOCK#Abuse_of_the_unblocking_process: "A usual block prevents users from editing all pages except their user talk page, in order to have a chance for appeal, and so that they are not shut out completely and are able to participate at least to some degree in Wikipedia, while the block is active." So it seems blocked editors can do other things besides request an unblock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Per WP:BLOCKBANDIFF, she is "still part of the community" and is allowed to use her talk page for talk-page-ness, unless she abuses it. Along with that, @OccultZone: Russavia was banned by the community, not just blocked. That explains why the talk page access was revoked for having done anything besides appeals.—LucasThoms 03:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No need to address this to me. I was just stating what the guidelines have with respect to the assumption that "you cannot use your talk page during block other than requesting unblock". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

As the user who first put in the proposal for the indefinite block, I wanted to chime in on this. While Carriearchdale is certainly still digging herself, she hasn't done anything egregious or blatantly disruptive on her own talk page. In addition, it is imperitive she be allowed talk page access so that some day when she realizes the disruption she has been causing she can request the unblock and return to the community. I strongly feel that the user is re-habitable but she has to make that initial choice to stop being disruptive. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 02:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably not as it would be easier to just dust off another sleeper account registered in 2007 and begin again anew. Hence the rather bizarre insistence that she has been around for seven years. She could be the greatest sock-master Wikipedia has ever seen, but unprovable since it's a sly move done over many years (seriously this goes deeper). I find that more believable than a user that doesn't do a test edit in seven years after registering an account. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 03:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Actually, please see Template:User Wikipedian For. It says and I quote "Add this template to your user page, with the year, month, and day your account was created. If you don't know the day your account was created, see your preferences here." Your edit to her user page was perfectly legal, the first change to the template was a good faith mistake, but BMK's revert and later edit after Carriearchdale explicitly opposed others editing her user page, while not exactly vandalism, I know it at least goes against WP:NOBAN. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care who edited what talkpage. The history says account was opened in 2007 but not used until January 2014 (gigantic red flag flapping in face IMHO). The user is also not exactly honest as evidenced by this edit where John Carter informed Vin09 [87] that Carrie was blocked (big red blocked banner does not appear at talkpage), Carrie erased that notice [88] and blatantly told [89] the user to email her for help with changes. That was not nice and an attempt to downplay the block. So no, the issue is greater than a tit-for-tat over talk page bling rights, but the issue is unfortunately unprovable until the blocked user jumps ship (countdown begins now). Froggerlaura ^ribbit 03:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

When you click "Edit" there's a pinkish-red banner at the top of the page that says "This user is blocked". I'm sure she realizes this, so it's really not logical for her to try to "hide" the fact that she's indeffed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. But she did anyway. Why delete only the block notice and suggest talking behind closed doors? Vin09 asked her to work on the article anyway despite the block notice, so it seems he/she did not know what a block entails, therefore that edit was devious by deleting John Carter's clarification to the user. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 04:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Also what would lead to you suspect by these affairs that logic is involved here? Froggerlaura ^ribbit 04:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Froggerlaura: Based on my observations of her behavior in the last week, I assume she deleted the comment because she felt they were butting in on her conversation (or some similar train of thought). Her talk page is still full of chat about her being blocked, and that's after she's already deleted some of it (from users she is always having conflict with), the diffs are still in the page history no matter what she removes, and she's never attempted to delete the block template itself, so I don't understand why you've jumped to the conclusion that she's trying to hide something that just screams at your face regardless. Whether she uses any logic isn't the point; doing what you're accusing her of doing is a fruitless waste of time (she'd be better off socking) and common sense would tell anyone that. This is just a case of misinterpretation and WP:ABF. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of Carriearchdale....

There are four pages in her userspace which contain copies of a article she wrote, Niotso, which was rejected at RfC, created by her directly in mainspace, AfD'd and the speedy deleted and userfied to her userspace, where she made three copies, for some reason. The articles haven't been edited since 6 February, and would seem to have gone past the time that copies of deleted articles are allowed to sit in userspace. I just tried to nominated them for MfD, but that has to be the godawfulist set of instructions, and I couldn't set it up right, so I undid the steps I had taken.

Could someone either speedydelete or send to MfD these four copies of a deleted article? There at User:Carriearchdale/Niotso, User:Carriearchdale/sandbox, User:Carriearchdale/sandbox1 and User:Carriearchdale/sandbox-13. BMK (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Why? Protonk (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• My understanding is that the userfication of deleted articles is done so that editors can work on improving them, with a eye toward correcting the problems that caused them to be deleted. However, this article was userfied on 6 February, and not a single edit has been made to any of the copies to bring them up to standard since then. My belief is that if userfied articles aren't actively being worked on, they are subject to deletion -- am I mistaken in that? BMK (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You're not mistaken, it just seems a bit needless. What purpose would deleting those three pages serve? What harm (however marginal) do they cause the project right now? Protonk (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • So, as you agree, they exist outside of policy, but you believe it's needless to delete them -- that's fine, I wouldn't expect you to delete them or nominate them for deletion. Others may believe differently from you. That's what makes horse racing. BMK (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I could suggest (As you do above) that we should ignore those rules because we aren't a bureaucracy. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Touché! BMK (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
          • As you note, other editors may disagree and end up deleting it. Just as I don't think there's a real harm in keeping them there's no real loss in deleting them. If the editor is unblocked and wants to work on them again, they can be pretty quickly restored. But I think it's worth not spiking the football in cases like this, or at least asking if we really want to. Protonk (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Um, given that it is blatant copy-paste plagiarism of this [90] (not a copyvio, as it is public domain), I think that deletion might be advisable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
              • DangerousPanda deleted the three sandboxes, and Orange Mike sent the other to AfD. Thanks. BMK (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not know about the user was blocked. I didn't do any mailing also, I use only wiki and I thought the user was admin as the edits resembled. So, I asked to have comment on merge proposal, that's it.--Vin09 (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Understandable, sorry for implying otherwise. John Carter (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Folks, you are feeding the situation needlessly. I think Protonk is correct (I don't remember crossing paths with you much before, but we seem to agree on much). Right now, I feel everyone is just too excited and worried about minutia. To quote the great Scorpius, "My patience may be formidable...but it is not infinite". Carrie has a very large shovel to dig with, I'm sure it is only a matter of time. What I will NOT allow to happen is to let someone like this push me into doing something that is against policy, even if the community would likely back me. We are all bigger people than this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have left a notification on her talk page, explaining my perspective (and I assume the perspective of a number of the community). As I have taken the time to explain it in great detail, there shouldn't be any "shock" if her talk page and email access is eventually removed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Sounds good, can we close this three-fold discussion now? I don't see the point in keeping it open now that all the problems brought up have been addressed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:48, 18 July 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.

Complete deletion of new edits with no 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.

---

I have no idea how to do this properly. User:Bender235 Bender235 deleted over 3 months and 300 hours of my work, 40,000 characters of edits, and hundreds of constructive additions to the page Military production during World War II. I am in the midst of uploading an enormous amount of PRIMARY SOURCE DATA and he deleted everything done so far as "wikipedia can not be a source for itself". I am enraged. There was not one comment, warning, question, request, or suggestion from this shit head "editor". Please reverse all the deletions and keep this moron off the page. There are ongoing constructive edits from several other individuals watching this site. Please help resolve this. --Brukner (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, you messed up the notification to him by putting it here, but I went and notified him. No harm, it can be confusing. Next, don't call anyone a moron, it is uncivil and unnecessary. He did delete a HUGE chunk of your work, and frankly, I didn't see any explanation other than an edit summary and a deletion that huge really needs more explanation on the talk page. Let's just hear him out before we get excited and assume anything. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Let me note this: Nothing is ever really lost as it is all in the history, and this is most likely a pure content issue that will need to get moved to the talk page, but at this point, a reply would be helpful to understand the true nature of the problem. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I can think of three huge reason it should have been deleted or reworked.

1) One can't read the dang thing. There is dark backgrounds with black text in the tables. The text is set at 60%. WP:ACCESSIBILITY says text should go no lower that 85%.

2) The article is entitled, Military production during World War II. But the tables say nothing of U.S., Japan, China or France.

3) Using blogs, Wikipedia and other unreliable references.

One shouldn't take this to ANI and start canvasing other editors without actually talking to Bender235 first. Bgwhite (talk) 21:16, 18 July 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.

Encouragement of personal attacks

Blocked for block evasion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

After I raised this issue before I was disappointed and disgusted with the response from the community. Some people who commented on the issue clearly didn't bother to look at the diffs and understand the situation before commenting. If you are not prepared to have that basic courtesy, your input will not be helpful. I cannot accept that the community is so happy to tolerate personal attacks, stalking, abusive behaviour and harassment so I am posting this again. I made three clearly described edits to the article wind wave ([91], [92], [93]) User:AlanS, who had taken to stalking my edits for reasons known thus far only to himself, reverted those edits for no reason ([94], [95], [96]) User:AlanS then made false accusations of vandalism ([97], [98]) The result of these false accusations was that I got blocked, and even left a warning threatening me with a block for calling User:AlanS a liar. Thus, his grievous personal attack has been condoned and encouraged. If you look at his talk page you can see that he has done this before. So why is his behaviour being encouraged? Subsequent to this incident, User:Ryulong also began stalking my edits, reverting them simply for the sake of reverting them (eg here). User:Ohnoitsjamie has also been stalking my edits, reverting them for no reason, and protecting the articles so that I cannot make the simple uncontroversial edits that I can't even believe I bothered to spend my time making. Action required User:AlanS must be told clearly that making false accusations of vandalism is a serious personal attack that will not be tolerated. User:AlanS should apologise to me for his false accusation, for stalking my edits and for reverting for no good reason Admins must be prepared to block people who make such serious personal attacks. The following articles should be unprotected: Blanchard Ryan, Standard score, Festina affair, Wind wave, Dina Meyer, American Airlines Flight 191, Her (film), Sarah Wayne Callies. User:Ryulong must be warned that reverting for no reason is a personal attack that will not be tolerated. User:Ohnoitsjamie must be warned not to intentionally reduce the quality of articles and then abuse his admin powers to keep them in a deficient state If you as a community think it's fine that people get attacked like I have for making simple uncontroversial edits like this one, then you have a serious problem. I hope that in fact you don't think it's fine. I look forward to seeing this treated seriously. 190.162.219.249 (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

hoax edits from User:Nikita Pavlunenko

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.

---

Nikita Pavlunenko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created what appear to be hoax articles for two Toronto buildings, CinéGroupe Building (Toronto) and Lionsgate Building (Toronto), both now speedily deleted as hoaxes. The editor has also attempted some cut-and-paste moves (which other editors have reverted) to PBS, and made an edit to Franklin (TV series), an article which has been vandalized by IP editors in the past. There have also been some edits that appear to have been made in good faith. The editor has not been active in the past few hours. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• blocked indefinitely by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · count). No further action needed. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I indeffed the user before I even saw this topic. It is not uncommon for VOA accounts to make a few - and I stress few in this instance - constructive edits. He not only created the hoax articles. He added the hoaxes to other pages and changed templates to incorporate the hoaxes. For as few edits as he's made, he was remarkably disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User talk:24.201.213.251

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.

---

Self admitted sock account: [99] that and disruptive editing over at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It also left comments on its talk page and on my talk page. Dustin (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User was reported to AIV just prior to this discussion. United States Man (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting them here, as you beat me to it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

24.201.213.251 has been blocked by Chillum for 72 hours. Dustin (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I had blocked this IP for being abusive to other editors. However now that I see he admits to block evasion I have extended the block to 2 weeks. There is a shared IP notice for the IP so I am hesitant to block any longer. I suspect this person will change ips soon. Chillum 05:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I added that notice based on the geolocate link, which indicates that it is a dynamic IP address. I have started to do that more often because it seems to help. Dustin (talk) 05:35, 19 July 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.

Editing another user's comments on Talk:David_Horvitz#Suitable_Image

Could an admin please remind User:TheRedPenOfDoom that it is inappropriate to edit another user's comments on a talk page?

• Original edit to User:Nowa's comment. See second paragraph for removal of “:”
• Second edit to User:Nowa's comment
• Third edit to User:Nowa's comment. --Nowa (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Red Pen and I have simply made it so the photograph does not display on the talk page. Nowa needs to stop adding the photos across the project where they were removed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Concur with Ryulong. This is nothing. Not even a tempest in a teacup, it's the ripple from a pin dropping. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I would argue that given the questionable copyright of that image—given it's a self-licensed image of himself, but not a selfie—there's no way in hell it should be displayed on a talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

When an image is either non-free or controversial in some way, changing it to a link by inserting the colon is not just preferred, it's a requirement. Hence the editor was right and within the rules, to edit the other editor's comment to insert the colon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that Horvitz can't make useful contributions. Contrast this with the work of User:David Shankbone, who has also had some controversy, but has also contributed many, many good-quality photos, and knows which side of the camera to stay on at any given time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• This is one of those cases where I would suggest to defer to the wisdom of other editors and add the : mark. The file is up for deletion as a copyright violation. Three people have indicated on that talk page that the : belongs, this IS an article talk page, consensus applies. This is an editorial issue, not something an admin needs to get involved in. Unless you war to remove the : mark against consensus, that is. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, he has been warring, to some extent. If Nowa is neither a sock nor meat puppet of Horvitz, he's certainly doing a good imitation. Ironically, I don't think there's really any hard rule against self-portraits in Wikipedia. If Horvitz had uploaded these things strictly to put on his user page and/or he had properly identified what he was doing, it probably wouldn't be such a big deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Putting aside any sock concerns as I don't see any evidence to warrant an investigation, I did leave a message on his talk page that should clear up any misconceptions about "status quo", a phrase that has little meaning on a Wiki. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Propose topic ban I recommend that a topic ban be applied so that Nowa (talk · contribs) performs no further editing or commenting regarding Horvitz or images that are probably intended to display pieces of Horvitz's body in Wikipedia. These edits from 17 July 2014 show Nowa adding such "look at me" images: diff + diff + diff + diff + diff + diff + diff + diff to eight different articles. Per not bureaucracy, let's not debate whether there is proof that the appendages belong to Horvitz—it's clear that even if they aren't, Nowa is trying to make some point that is not related to improving the articles. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• it seems clear that Nowa is either Horvitz's agent acting directly on his behalf to continue his "art" campaign on Wikipedia or or acting in such a manner that it is indistinguishable from him/his agent and certainly WP:NOTHERE to actually improve the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a recent issue with Nowa, so maybe a topic ban is premature. But I have to say that his involvement in the David Horvitz topic area is almost uniformly negative. He either makes light of the disruption by David Horvitz or edit wars to keep his images on Wikipedia. Therefore I support a topic ban.--Atlan (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Support per Nowa's behavior. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ooh a spanking. A spanking!--Nowa (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked two weeks for trolling. I have zero patience for that, and the community shouldn't have to tolerate someone antagonizing for fun. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that any admin reviewing should note all the intentionally disruptive edits, snide remarks and obvious intent to antagonize the community. It isn't the individual edits, it is the trollish behavior and delight in taking up what could be useful time. Anyone who takes joy in causing disruption doesn't belong here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Dennis. It's comforting to know that even you, with the patience of a saint, can get fed up! BMK (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
      • What do people think? The two-week block will expire. Do we rely on Dennis for the future, or is a topic ban worthwhile? Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Ah, WP:Boomerang. Well seeing as how most of his involvement in the last David Horvitz ANI discussion was either trolling or playing the Devil's advocate, and his reinsertion of these images, I say a topic ban is appropriate, as his behavior is only getting in the way of dealing with the problem at hand. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm usually fairly hardline, but I'd say let him come off the block and see what he does. The amount of WP:ROPE he's given should be extremely short. If he avoids the Horvitz situation, fine, but if he plunges in again, I think a topic ban would be in order, and I believe the community would agree. BMK (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
            • That is my line of thinking as well. The two week block is a rather sharp block and was no accident nor overreaction. It is to give the maximum opportunity of not having to block again. There is plenty of room for fun, laughing and jokes at Wikipedia (but preferably not at ANI). There is no room for lolz, however. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom

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

---

Hi I am Tamravidhir. I have a problem and the problem which I am facing is that there is this article, Bade Achhe Lagte Hain, which is an article on an Indian soap opera. Bade Achhe Lagte Hain is a Hindi phrase. It's difficult to make a direct translation, but the phrase vaguely means "looks too nice". The thing is that I have made major edits to this article. In fact its the article which has been most edited by me. I have added some useful information, kept in mind that "Michelangelo created David by cutting out what was not David" and kept the plot short and blah blah and blah. And what should be mentioned is that I have added extensive references to reliable sources such as articles published by national newspapers. And now there is a user known as TheRedPenOfDoom who has always dismissed the article saying that the references cannot be accepted "as per Wikipedia guidelines" and has been keeping on deleting the information which has no reference. I have almost ended up doing an edit war. This user is the only user with whom I have had terrible experiences. Now, after a break the user has come back and is again deleting information. Firstly, the soap opera aired at 10:30 pm so that means that it is late evening, and there's even a reference regarding the time slot but he says that: You may NOT keep reinserting your personal interpretations of "sporadic" or "very late" without providing a reliably published source that verifies the claim.

Except this there is also an info which says that the soap opera's broadcast on Thursdays in 2014 was sporadic. The user again says that there is no reference so he or she has been deleting the info. I guess that there is a "citation needed" tag which I have add now. But I have seen many article without references or such tags in the lead paragraph. For instance, the article The Simpsons and there are more, such as How I Met Your Mother and Muhteşem Yüzyıl. And I don't know why the user is always up to prove me wrong! He or she is somewhat engaged in WP:BITE.

And this is not ending by a healthy discussion. And the biggest problem is that we have discussed the matter in our personal talk pages and note the article talk page. The is very dominating, dogmatic and adamant. It will lead to something terrible after which I would have to take a long break and come back later (now I think that I would have to). I don't want that to happen. So I want help. Please help me. I would also like you to know what another user has written on his talk page:

I saw what you did at Supriya Pathak. I asked you nicely but you took it on your ego and vented your frustration by blanking more sections of the page. If you really want to remove unsourced or poorly sourced info then why don't you give some time to other editors so that they can properly add sources. You are clearly discouraging other editors who are still learning like me. You just want to be superior to others. First you want sources and when you are provided with them, you call them bad and unreliable. You should be encouraging people but it seems like you are on a mission to prove something. Sorry for my this behavior but you kind of disappointed and demoralized me today...

And this is true. I am not hatching a plot against the mentioned user, but just expressing my views and opinions and begging for help. Help this poor user! Please I need a help! The user is just not understanding. There has to be my fault but what the user is doing is also wrong and s/he is not understanding it. S/he just boasts about Wikipedia rules even if he doesn't know how to properly use and implement them. Please help me. I will be more than grateful to you!Thank you! --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Tamravidhir: this appears to be a content dispute. Please follow the steps at WP:DR. I see you have added a "citation needed" tag, but this is to show unsourced content and not to replace a citation. Additionally, please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - just because one article is lacking in sources does not mean every other article on Wikipedia needs to go down the slippery slope of less and less sources. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 16:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Further, Tamravidhir, once an editor has challenged information as untrue, no editor can restore that data without providing an inline citation that directly supports the information being provided. Tags do not suffice. In general, attracting TheRedPenofDoom's attention can be an unpleasant experience, but in these matters he is typically right. Material needs sources, and your opinions about what constitute "sporadic" or "late" require citations to support your characterizations.—Kww(talk) 17:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The only "complaint" I have about TRPoD is that he hasn't taken Tupac Shakur (back) to good article status yet. Other than that, this looks like a content dispute. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom is blunt but a very knowledgeable and capable editor. If he is removing sections, odds are very good that policy is on his side when removing it. I suggest taking a different tact and engaging him, learn from him. Much of that cut info may be able to be restored if it was properly sourced, so your best chance for success is working with him, and don't work against him. Just ask "why is it removed, and if I sourced this, would it make sense to put it back?", and accept his answers for now. I know this is difficult at first, but it has some very good rewards if you do. He isn't unreasonable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This user has been vandalizing several pages asking for source and when the source is added, still he/she removes it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourcepen (talk • contribs) 11:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The above editor appears to be a sock of HofKal (talk · contribs) and one or more IP's. I have no idea who's in the right in this edit-war. But I have notified RedPen about Sourcepen and HofKal, and likewise AIV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

An admin has now blocked both ID's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 19 July 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.

Trident13

Per the permission guidelines and the issue at large, I've brought my concern here for community review.

I've recently encountered a number of copyright concerns by Trident13 that I feel are egregious enough (at a minimum) to warrant the removal of his reviewer and autopatrol user rights. My first encounter of the issue was Trident13's close paraphrasing copyright violation at Soughton Hall. (Please see this Wikilegal post for addition information on close paraphrasing.) Upon further investigation, I found there are additional reports that demonstrate similar copyright violations. (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#LA_Models) Digging further into the issue reveals over 200 articles where Trident13 posted the content of copyrighted pages onto an article, used a NOINDEX tag or hid the text in comment lines, and then paraphrased the content. (See his move log. Most of the concerning pages were located in his userspace and then moved into the namespace. The majority are tagged with "into production".) This is an issue that has continued, despite being notified in October 2011. Some of these actions have been brought into question on COIN and Trident13 has not responded to the concerns in over a week.

In addition, Justlettersandnumbers, Jytdog, and Fuhghettaboutit have raised concerns of his failure to disclose possible conflicts of interest under the new terms of use. (See the COI case posted above).

There is a required level of trust and familiarity with our core policies to hold these rights. I don't feel that Trident13 meets these criteria. I would like to invite the community to discuss the proposal to remove these permissions and if any additional sanctions should be implemented. Any administrator assistance in the revision deletion of the affected articles would be greatly appreciated. Best, Mike V • Talk 06:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: Not endorsing the proposal, just making it simple to snout count. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀}

But Wikipedia is WP:NOTAVOTE, and an issue like this doesn't even need support/oppose !voting the panda ₯’ 09:49, 19 July 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.

---

As proposed: In response to multiple acts of copyright infringement, the community removes Trident13's reviewer and autopatrolled rights. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Trident13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Support

• My understanding is that users with these rights should be aiming to make ths situation (copyvio etc.) beter not worse. If they are unable or unwilling to employ the correct use of their own edits then it feels improper that they are evaluating others in the same manner.Amortias (T)(C) 09:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Why are we even discussing this? Yank the bits. They aren't prizes, they are granted based on trust, no discussion is even needed in a case like this. For that matter, if you have 200 cases of copyright infringement, you need to indef block him while it gets sorted out. Really, this is cut and dry. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  To add: behavior problems are one thing and I'm always willing to talk it out with editors in those cases, but copyright has legal implications that can involve the foundation, and gross violations put a tremendous burden on the system, which is already overtaxed. If I had a list of those articles or proof of infringement in front of me, I would have blocked him myself, but I can't without seeing and verifying the evidence personally. If you have it, just do it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Going to toss my hat here, per Dennis Brown ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

• No his rights shouldn't be removed. Just educate him about why he's wrong. That's what WP:AGF is all about. 117.177.79.37 (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Wikilink above. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Since I'm not a registered user, I have to support him here. I don't think he's a bad faith contributor and we can't remove his rights after all the great stuff he's done for our project. 197.232.17.196 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 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.

Copyright Infringement

• Note As already stated, permissions are about trust, and I have removed them. The additional issue about blocking and other actions should still be under discussion the panda ₯’ 09:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I originally wrote the above as a proposal as that appeared to be the intention of Mike V. I apologize if I made things more difficult or cumbersome. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀}

Per DangerousPanda I'll rewrite the prior proposal as thus:

Proposal: Trident13 has violated the community trust by committing multiple acts of copyright violations and as such is indefinitely blocked from the English Wikipedia. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 10:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the enthusiasm, but if he has 200 copyvios and I can see them, I will just block him. That is one of those things that doesn't require a vote, as there is plenty of previous consensus on it. There are some COI issues at WP:COI but those don't bother me so much since the TOS for WMF sites recently changed. Copyright infringement is the most serious offense you can do here because of the legal problems and sheer expense to the Foundation. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

...and we don't need "proposals" or !votes for everything. No need to set them up the panda ₯’ 11:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I see a ton of deleted contribs that worry me, but I can't do a complete investigation right now. I'm soon to be off to visit a relative in ICU, so pardon if I can't follow up for a while. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hope all's well Dennis! the panda ₯’ 11:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Following up on Dennis Brown, I see this CCI investigation, Soughton Hall (check the history), Michael Hogben, and maybe some others. Trident has a considerable number of contributions, deleted or otherwise, so sifting through them will take a little time. My first impression (which may change wildly as I search more) is that there are copyvio problems but nothing close to "200 copyvios". Again, there are lots of edits to search through so that's not a complete estimate yet. Justlettersandnumbers, you seem to be following this issue closely. Can you point us toward the specific articles and edits which you found, beyond those listed at CCI now? Protonk (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

One example would be here. While the current article may not infringe on copyright, as it has developed over time by the community, the history still needs to be revision deleted. The articles found in the log above follow a similar pattern. Mike V • Talk 14:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

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.

---

Od rance mate is inserting the same contentious text into multiple articles across Wikipedia about the recent airplane crash and not doing any other constructive editing. He's been warned multiple times, but is continuing the activity. I'd give diffs, but all the edits on his contributions page are the same thing, q.v.. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

He appears to have ceased - hasn't edited in 11 minutes. But these attacks are nothing new, since the first place most people go to when they have their own theories as to who did this and who did that when big events happen is, aside from Facebook and Twitter, Wikipedia. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 15:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Already blocked by User:Kelapstick, just needs closing. Amortias (T)(C) 15:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That was just Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Runtshit casually exploiting the deaths of ~300 people to harass an editor he doesn't like. Next time, and there will be a next time, there's no need for anyone to waste their time issuing warnings. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:47, 18 July 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.

Continuation of disruptive activity by a SPA 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:Djmex9205 is a SPA account that has been causing disruption at Motion picture rating system. Their conduct was reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive250#User:Djmex9205 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 48 h) where they received a 48 hour block.

Another SPA account was registered today as User:RazorShotter and has yet again installed the same disruptive and unsourced edit at the same article: [100]. This edit was followed by an act of vandalism just 20 minutes later by the original SPA, Djmex9205, which was reverted by a Cluebot. The editors are clearly one and the same, since they enclose their edit summaries with the same typography i.e. /* Comparison */

I don't think this editor is here to serve any useful service so please will someone disable both accounts permanently, and perhaps put the article under semi-protection to prevent further disruption by SPAs. Betty Logan (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"/* Comparison */" is the name of the sub-section they're working on. That's a default edit summary. They're edit-warring over the color of a rating tag? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Last week, Djmex was edit warring with the bot. I'm starting to think there is a CIR issue at hand. I don't definitive reasons to think RazorShotter same person, although the slightly paranoid first edit to their own talk page is odd and they may know each other. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell from the diffs, but there is a clear explanation at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#US_PG_rating. Basically what they were initially doing (and what the new SPA has continued doing) is installing an age restriction on the American PG rating that does not exist. The MPAA does not stipulate an age restriction for the PG rating at all (the PG-13 rating is a separate rating and already accounted for in the table). The MPAA source is provided in the article itself and at the discussion on the talk page. Since then they have started adding false summaries to the guidelines, and in the most recent edit they have changed one of Mexico's color bars so it contradicts Mexico's age rating guidelines. This isn't a content dispute, these are edits that flat-out contradict the age rating summaries and their sources. Betty Logan (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked both, the diffs made it clear, plus behavior. Socking, CIR, WP:DE, etc. Too much coincidence here, socking is the only possible answer. I tried to see them as just "friends", but in the end, the behavior is just too similar. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and semi-protected one month as well, since obviously they are willing to sock to introduce that info. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out. Betty Logan (talk) 14:57, 17 July 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 180.149.12.173

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

---

IP 180.149.12.173 has been adding large amounts of copyrighted and unsourced content to GMB Akash, unfortunately too quickly and persistently for me to have any chance to improve the article. Content is being copied from one of the subject's many website or social media pages, for example http://www.akash-images.com/exibitions.php and http://gmbakash.wordpress.com/profile/ (it's pretty evident because it's generally written in the first person singular). Can someone block this IP and/or semi-protect the page from IP edits? Sionk (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for copyright violations after a final warning. Chillum 18:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

WP:CRYSTAL and appointment of Catholic bishops

Currently affected articles:

• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cologne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rainer Woelki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Archbishop of Cologne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Current discussions:

• Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cologne#Woelki has not yet been installed and is not archbishop of Cologne until that time
• User talk:Elizium23#Archdiocese of Cologne

Users involved:

• Jamesbondfan (talk · contribs)
• Aa75253 (talk · contribs)
• 124.150.17.249 (talk)

Past discussions and affected articles are available on User talk:Elizium23#Appointment of Catholic Bishops. The chronic problem here on Wikipedia is that Catholic bishops are put into their offices before their installation dates. This is analogous to a Presidential Inauguration, in that the bishop does not have possession or control of the diocese before that time that he takes it. Unfortunately, the news media makes a lot of noise when the appointments happen, and less when the installations occur, and so the tendency is to report the news as if it has already happened. Further complicating matters are unreliable sites such as gcatholic.org and catholic-hierarchy.org which don't make the distinction. This is an intractable problem because it is spread out over many articles, over a long period of time, and many editors who aren't regulars. There aren't enough regulars available to patrol here as I've tried at least twice on WT:CATHOLIC to generate consensus. The last straw for me, which brings me here today, is a profanity-laden accusation of vandalism and personal attack by Jamesbondfan. Quite unnecessary and over-the-top. I have always sought to uphold policy and be civil in this matter. Elizium23 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

In your first example, at least, it says so-and-so "2014-present". I assume what you mean is that it's some later date in 2014. Maybe if the specific date were given, it would clarify things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The mention of a future bishop does not belong in infoboxes, lists, or succession boxes, or otherwise portrayed as current in the article. It's fine to talk about the appointment in the article prose. But doesn't it seem a little ridiculous for a space that's supposed to list incumbent officers to include a future date? Elizium23 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

What is being added is most absolutely not "speculative or unconfirmed" data. That's what WP:CRYSTAL refers to, not the misplacing of data - and that's all this is. The editors merely misunderstood the difference between the announcement date of an installation and the installation date itself. I don't agree with expletive-ridden replies, but you wouldn't have got one if you'd explained the issue to Jamesbondfan instead of templating him with a completely inaccurate template. Again, the problem here is not that the information was speculative: there was an official announcement. --NellieBly (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If you would prefer, I can use the "factual error" template to be added, because this adding to lists and infoboxes as "already in office" is plain inaccurate. Elizium23 (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

How about if you enter the date the guy is scheduled to start the job? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That's what i did! i translated the cologne release into english and that's what i got! --Jamesbondfan (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)--Jamesbondfan)

It shows Woelki as the current officeholder. Is that correct? Or is the previous guy still in there? Or is it technically "vacant" at present? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Code of Canon Law: Diocesan Bishops; Code of Canon Law: The Vacant See. It's presently sede vacante. What happens is that the outgoing bishop tenders his resignation to the Holy See and it's accepted nunc pro tunc (now for later) and he continues as bishop while a search is undertaken. Then the appointment of the new bishop is announced, and typically this goes together with the acceptance of the outgoing bishop's resignation. At that point the see is vacant. The incoming bishop retains his previous post and his title of e.g. "Archbishop of Berlin" but his powers are limited to that of a diocesan administrator. See also, Appointment of Catholic bishops. Elizium23 (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

So if the guy has not actually assumed his new duties yet, then the article should say "pending" or some such. Like a newly-elected US President is the "President-elect" until he assumes office on January 20. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the infobox reflect the actual state of matters instead of a future one? Elizium23 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The article should state, somewhere within it, that so-and-so is scheduled to take office later this year. Currently it doesn't, and if you just say "vacant" in the infobox, without an explanation, the article is uninformative. The explanation you gave above, about how it works, should be incorporated into the article as a generic explanation, and then add the name of the guy who is the "pending" officeholder. Then it becomes informative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the news can be discussed in the article prose. I have never opposed that. But I don't see the point of cluttering up what is supposed to be a current, factual list or infobox by putting two things into it. If it's sede vacante until the next installation then read the article to find out who is incoming! Elizium23 (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If he's not actually in office yet, he shouldn't be stated flatly as the office holder. But I don't see why he couldn't still be in the infobox, with an abbreviated explanation, so that the reader knows immediately what's going on: vacant (so-and-so pending). Something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Because an infobox is for current, concise information, not to cover all the possibilities. He has no powers of office yet. Do you also suggest, in the BLP of the bishop, to write both offices everwhere with (current) and (pending) next to them? Elizium23 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is to inform the reader. If I want to know who the guy is, the word "vacant" without an explanation is useless, and makes Wikipedia look stupid. Rule number 1, which trumps everything else: "Try not to make Wikipedia look stupid." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

So this was wrong, then? Elizium23 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

What about this stupidity from 2008? Elizium23 (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference: there's a much longer period of time between the appointment and the installation of a bishop (months, sometimes) than there is between the appointment and the swearing-in of a US Cabinet minister (hours to days) - and not even a micro-instant between the end of one Presidential term and another. But we shouldn't be templating regular editors in any event whatsoever for a good-faith mistake. --NellieBly (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What, specifically? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"Installation of foo scheduled on" whenever or "installation pending" or similar are options. Again, though, I think calling attention to this at WP:MOSBIO would probably get some help. John Carter (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Question: Has anyone ever tried to get MOSBIO to address all announcement/installation discrepancies in general? I imagine there are at least some others, and I think maybe having clear guidelines what to do with these matters might help. Maybe having uniform infobox standards for announcement and installation (or similar) could be made too. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that US Presidents are not a good comparison; a better one would be British (and other) monarchs, whose reign is dated from the day they succeed to the throne, even though their coronation will take a few months to organize. In practice the bishops appear to get their feet under the new desk pretty immediately, whatever canon law says, and I'm inclined to think we should generally ignore the fact they are not formally installed yet, on grounds of substance over form. Mind you there used to be cases like Spearhafoc, apparently appointed as Bishop of London in 1051, but never formally installed for political reasons, who eventually got fed up and vanished with the diocesan treasury, which he had been controlling. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

But they don't. They still have their previous office to take care of. Take the common case of a priest elected as bishop - Wikipedia immediately dubs them bishops, puts them in bishop categories, gives them a bishop infobox, and they're not even ordained yet. They're canonically incapable of "getting their feet under the desk". And so is an incoming, transferred bishop. Elizium23 (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute between User:Markdabner and User:Mark Heins on List of people who have run across Australia

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.

---

These two editors have been reverting edits over the edition of Sarah Mycroft on the page. All I know is that her run is controversial. Usually in these cases the person is still mentioned, but the controversy is explained. However, both these editors have been going back and forth on the edition and have violated the 3RR. I warned both after the violated it and told them to discuss it. However, both persisted and Markdabner warned Mark Heins on vandalism in his 'attempt' to start a dialog which is not appropriate for a content dispute.

The first communication with Mark Heins about his 'controversial' addition was added by User:150.101.108.212 (from the email the IP user left seems to be Mark Dabner) to Mark Heins' talk page was deeply inappropriate and is the start of the no communication and just revert that both editors have done.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To be honest, this is a content dispute, and not the right venue for these sort of issues. However, I reported both users to AN3, I suggest we let that process play out. To be frank, the childish behavior of both of these editors is disappointing. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 18:45, 19 July 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.

Antidiskriminator

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.

---

Required reading (sorry):

• Talk:Đurđevdan uprising generally
• User talk:Joy#Đurđevdan uprising + User talk:Antidiskriminator/Archive 9#Re: Đurđevdan uprising
• User talk:Joy#My queries about your Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions + User talk:Antidiskriminator/Archive 9#Re: My queries about your Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions
• User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 33#Antidiskriminator
• User talk:Joy#"Another hodgepodge created by trawling Google search results" + User talk:Antidiskriminator/Archive 9#Re: "Another hodgepodge created by trawling Google search results"
• User talk:Joy#Đurđevdan uprising II + User talk:Antidiskriminator#Re: Đurđevdan uprising

This series of unproductive communications between User:Antidiskriminator and myself has crossed the line between annoyingly bizarre and disruptive. After months of discussion, we're clearly not making any substantial progress, because today Antidiskriminator actually explicitly accused me on the article talk page of conspiring with User:Peacemaker67 to molest him, acting against consensus, having no support outside of a purported tag team, etc. To add insult to injury, that's in reply to a discussion where we actually had a new user (User:Roches) post a lengthy critique of Ad's choices that touched on all the issues that I raised earlier, and then some.

One of the links above is from when I had asked User:EdJohnston, the admin who had last topic-banned Antidiskriminator over unhelpful Talk page behavior, and then unbanned him, to review that decision. He suggested more discussion at the time. In any event, this doesn't have to be adjudicated by a single person, so I'm bringing it up here. With regard to admin involvement, I have to also mention a recent incident where I was blocked by User:JamesBWatson after having imposed blocks in a manner that could have reasonably put my impartiality into question. An unfortunate coincidence is that this story also involved Antidiskriminator, and he's proceeded to use that against me in discussions.

Yes, it's possible to continue toiling away at this rate, engaging in numerous mind-numbing discussions, !voting in numerous RMs, fixing various unreliable source issues, and trying to make sense of user talk. But it's an unreasonable drain on our collective resources. Volunteer time is a scarce commodity, and we shouldn't waste it on repeating the same errors and error corrections all the time.

I have no intention of using my admin powers here (despite the myriad slaphappy accusations by Ad of how I'm abusing them...), and instead I'm asking for others to help. Some sort of a topic ban should be imposed that would break this disruptive pattern. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67

This has been literally going on for several years. The only time I have experienced Antidiskriminator not behaving in this way is during his ARBMAC topic ban on Pavle Đurišić, imposed (and later lifted) by User:EdJohnston. Since the lifting of his topic ban on 10 January, Antidiskriminator has started over 45 new sections on Talk:Pavle Đurišić, making over 560 edits on the talk page. In the entire history of the article, he has made only 46 edits in article space. A quick skim of the talk page and its two most recent talk page archives will give you a taste of the behaviour, which includes him placing "Not resolved" tags on threads, and refusing to edit in article space despite the fact that on numerous occasions there has been no opposition to material being added. It has recently been extended to Talk:Vojislav Lukačević, where Antidiskriminator has started 19 new talk page sections since 17 June.

Because of the incredibly frustrating behaviour, circular discussions and constant going off on tangents, my judgement has slipped on a couple of occasions, and I have consequently unilaterally imposed a ban on interacting with Antidiskriminator on both these articles unless he first edits in article space. This appears to have had no effect, but at least now I am not being drawn into more and more discussions that go nowhere, and his WP:IDHT approach. I have also banned him from posting on my user talk page, because he was effectively harassing me there as well. The evidence is that the lifting of the topic ban has only encouraged him to continue with his disruptive behaviour, and that it is getting worse. I consider that a three month topic ban on Yugoslavia in WWII (broadly construed) would be appropriate, and might have the desired effect of getting him to ameliorate his behaviour. If it doesn't have the desired effect, an indefinite ban will probably be necessary. He just isn't making enough of a contribution to the encyclopedia to justify the disruption. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I will add, for anyone watching this, that Antidiskriminator is not only aware of this discussion (because Joy obviously advised him), but since it was logged, he has been busily working away in areas that are not the subject of this discussion, with over 75 edits in less than two days. I am afraid that he has no respect for consensus-based processes, he just soldiers on regardless, in the hope that it will just go away and he can return to the same pattern of behaviour. God help the editors that work in late 19th century/early 20th century Serbian history, because that is what he is editing now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by IJA

I think it is fair to say that me and Antidiskriminator don't see eye to eye. I'm no angel, but then again Antidiskriminator is certainly no angel either. He isn't the easiest editor to work with, but then again, neither am I. In February he went through a phase of harassing me on my talk page making weird comments, making false accusations (mainly that I was personally attacking people when I hadn't) and just general spamming. [101] and [102] I warned Antidiskriminator back then to stop harassing my talk page [103]. After this, he stopped harassing my talk page. I had previously told him that "Your harassment and spamming on my talk page is irritating. I will be deleting anything you post on here." I just wanted to be left alone and not have a constant barrage of comments from him on my talk page. It is like he has to have the final word on everything.
I recently spent ages upgrading the history on the "Prizren" article and Antidiskriminator just out of the blue reverted it and he tried justifying it by saying that the history added to the article makes Serbs look "particularly bad". All I was trying to do was upgrade the history section and he wanted to censor bits he didn't like. As a Brit, I know we have one of the darkest histories in the world, but I'd never say we shouldn't include something on Wikipedia because it makes Brits look "particularly bad". This was blatant stonewalling by Antidiskriminator.
I'm in no position to say whether or not he should be topic banned and I certainly don't think it would be fair of me either as I tend to have disagreements with Antidiskriminator. This is Wikipedia, everyone should be free to edit. I think it is worth mentioning that Antidiskriminator can be a useful editor and he does sometimes make useful contributions to Wikipedia, even though he does tend to be a thorn in my side. He can be an asset at times. Regards IJA (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

From my own experience with Antidiskriminator, I would second Joy's and Peacemaker's complaints. It's difficult to provide diffs because it's just such a pervasive and diffuse long-term pattern of behaviour, but Antidiskriminator is certainly one of the most persistently tendentious and stubborn actors in the field – usually keeping below the threshold of admin intervention by avoiding overly perspicuous edit-warring sprees and incivility, but persistently obstructing discussions through stonewalling and refusal to get the point, coupled with tendentious and poor-quality editing in articles. I've unfortunately got involved in disagreements with him on a small number of occasions myself, so I probably no longer count as uninvolved (although I have no involvement in any of the disputes Joy is talking about), but I'd say it's high time somebody pulled the WP:ARBMAC trigger on him again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Joy and Peacemaker, but Fut.Perf. has really hit the nail on the head. Antidiskriminator occasionally does something blatant, like adding hoax content, tag-teaming with obvious socks, using fake numbers, creating pov-forks &c.; but really the main problem is the pervasive low-level pov-pushing on Balkan history and geography, and the stonewalling. It's been going on for years. bobrayner (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Pm67 proposed a three-month topic ban above. The previous topic ban, narrower in scope, lasted between 2012-11-02 and 2014-01-10, that is, 14 months. If there is consensus that the previous topic ban had no positive effect, I see no point in a new topic ban that is shorter than 14 months, and the scope also has to be wider. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. bobrayner (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin therefore I don't believe it is my place to say what ban, if any ban at all Antidiskriminator should get. IJA (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to be an admin, IJA. WP is run by the community, which empowers admins to do certain tasks on its behalf. They are a bit like the police in that respect, they operate with the consent of the community. If community consent is withdrawn, the mop is taken away. That doesn't mean we are governed by the admins, or that they are the only ones whose opinions matter. For Joy and Bob, I believe a shorter but much wider ban would permit the community to see if Antidiskriminator can edit outside Yugoslavia in WWII without being disruptive. That topic is my concern here, because that is where I deal with his behaviour. However, you and others may be aware of other areas where he is being disruptive, in which case the scope of the ban should be widened further, perhaps to include anything to do with Serbia or Serbs (broadly construed). If he returns to the behaviour demonstrated after the ban ends, then I think the only answer is an indefinite site ban, just as he has on Serbian WP (for similar behaviour). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT the topic area that encompasses the articles where I've noticed Antidiskriminator to have been disruptive would be 20th-century Serbian history, broadly construed. That should cover both the '09 Dedijer book stuff at Talk:Skaramuca and the '90s war stuff at Talk:Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars. Since we have a pretty clear case of recidivism here, I just don't see a point in a short length ban, but obviously anything is better than nothing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't work on the World War 2 stuff if you paid me, because the editing environment there is so toxic. I work on other topics, for instance more recent Balkan history; but where that involves Serbia, it involves Antidiskriminator, and similar problems appear - kneejerk reverts, stonewalling, pov-forks, misrepresentation, &c. There is also highly asymmetric use of sources - where content fits a Serb-nationalist POV, sourcing requirements are very low; but where it doesn't fit that POV, suddenly even the strongest sources are somehow disqualified and the content swiftly removed. More frustrating is that when some other (more blatant) pov-pusher (or sockpuppet) appears on the scene and other editors are trying to contain the damage, Antidiskriminator gives the POV-warrior support and helps them with a few reverts. For instance, the most destructive Balkan POV-warriors who have been kicked off the project seem to have one thing in common: Antidiskriminator gave them barnstars (Example 1, 2 3, 4 5). As far as the scope of a topic ban is concerned, I am pragmatic. I just want to make it possible for other editors to fix some of our neutrality problems. Half the scope means half the benefit, but that's better than nothing at all. bobrayner (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

What about Serbia and Serbs from 1900-? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. There are probably some potential conflicts in the 19th century (or in the Ottoman era), but I think your proposal would tackle the most serious problems. bobrayner (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a more appropriate topic ban would be a ban on topics involving/ relating to "Serbs, Serbia, Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslavia" 1900 to Present? This way it will stop any topic ban from being loosely interpreted. IJA (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for a topic ban on Antidiskriminator

Consensus from the two involved (Joy) and possibly involved (Future Perfect) admins and the other editors in this thread (bobrayner and I) appears to be coalescing around proposing a ban on Antidiskriminator editing in topics involving "Serbs and Serbia 1900-current" (broadly construed). Given we have yet to get any non-involved admin comment on this thread so far, and Antidiskriminator appears to be avoiding the issue, I believe it is appropriate to make a formal topic ban proposal for the admins here to consider. I would particularly like to get User:EdJohnston's perspective, given he was the one who lifted the original, much narrower ban. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support, I tried to work with to three requested moves and Antidiskriminator's "stonewalling" wasted a lot of time and energy in the moves, repeating things which weren't accurate or had be refuted, and it spread to other pages like user talk and move review. Now Look What You've Done (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hours after I supported a topic ban, sockpuppets have started reverting my old edits, like this [104] :-( Now Look What You've Done (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• People, what we need here is more input from uninvolved observers. As much as I would want this topic ban to happen, it's no use for us involved people to be proposing or "!voting" for things here. Without outside attention, nothing's gonna happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sadly, FP, if we don't make some attempt to progress it, it will just get archived as "too hard" by the admins that work here every day, because those admins aren't willing to dip their toes into ARBMAC territory, because that is generally not where they work. I've been here before, and I'm sure you and Joy have seen it too. That is the reality of bringing anything of mild complexity and longevity to this board. Easy stuff gets dealt with quite quickly. That is why I have tried to progress it, given it is already half-way up the current list, with no uninvolved admin comment at all, even from Ed Johnston, who was the one who lifted the ban. Frankly, I think that the admins that were involved in the original ARBMAC discussion, the ban and the lifting of the ban should make some time to at least give it their opinion. Short of pinging them, what else is a non-admin supposed to do? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support, it has taken me hours to read the history of Pavle Đurišić and other pages, but that is the problem: The tendentious editing of Antidiskriminator, and always arguing over any little detail for POV. I am not sure about how long the ban should be. I don't think I'm involved, at worst I did give a WP:3O on a different Serbia page, years ago. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 17:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for spending the time reviewing the history, Dentalplanlisa. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed much of the material on the Đurđevdan uprising, which led me to the conclusion that a topic ban is warranted at this time. My previous interaction with Antidiskriminator was at The Holocaust, where my perception was that he intended to block the removal of peripheral content from the article, which meant it would be impossible for the article to reach GA status. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• I was briefly involved there too, and his behaviour there was classic Antidiskriminator, working every angle to retain POV material. The question of "is the mass killing of Serbs in the NDH part of the Holocaust" is a victim-centred Serb POV issue from the 90's which is well documented by a wide range of scholars. I don't think your involvement there makes you "involved", Diannaa. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Starting from tomorrow I will be on holiday and may not respond swiftly to queries. I expect to be able to reply to questions with not more than 24-48 hours delay. With all due respect for a group of editors (who were all except Dentalplanlisa involved in disputes with me) I don't think they presented valid arguments for sanctions against me. I still believe that Joy should simply initiate WP:RM as explained to him multiple times, also by another administrator in his replies (diff and diff) to Joy's and Peacemaker67's complaint about my conduct. If in the meantime the consensus is reached that Joy was right that there was something wrong with my editing, I sincerely apologize in advance and promise not to repeat same mistake in future. All the best!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's good timing. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I disagree with the tendentious editing accusation being leveled at Antidiskriminator. I don't see much wrong with his contributions overall. Or I should say I don't see anything more wrong with them than with the contributions of the involved editors preparing the groundwork for his ban here. He's clearly got an inherent bias when it comes to Balkan history, as do many of the editors going after him here. Skullduggery and douchery, whether active or passive, that stem from those opposing views and biases have long been the editing norm on those articles and this proposal is basically just another battlefield of a fued that's long crossed over into personal territory.Zvonko (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I pretty much expected you to say something like this after how you behaved at Talk:Anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo - a lot of general claims that just don't hold up to scrutiny. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the sinful "behaviour" of utilizing cognitive capabilities and coming up with output different from yours. Oh, the blasphemy! You should seriously consider suggesting a ban for my "behaviour".Zvonko (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If it were only so innocuous. You advocated, in rather strong words, a position that was a essentially a trivially disingenuous misreading of search engine output, which in turn had to be explicitly debunked by myself and several other users - and then you failed to acknowledge the error, let alone change your !vote or even apologize for insisting on something so easily disproven. So, like I said, I don't really expect you to understand what Antidiskriminator's disruptive behavior is, when you willfully engage in it as well. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, you would definitely know about disingenuity and disruption, I'll give you that. This is why you're so comfortable accusing others of it. Psychological projection is one helluva a defense mechanism. From pretending Dado Pršo's first name isn't Miladin, and blatantly ignoring reliable sources confirming so, to this episode where you're a.) misinterpreting my position on a different talk page and b.) attaching sinister intent on my part, both in a pathetic little attempt of disqualifying my opinion when it comes to this ban proposal - it's just the kind of obnoxiousness that's par for the course with you. Also, lest anyone takes your distortions at face value, the only thing you and "several other users" (by which you mean PRODUCER, another all-star power forward from the same school of disingenuous as you who got forced into early retirement) "debunked" are your own concoctions that have nothing to do with what I argued for.Zvonko (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I most certainly did not blatantly ignore any reliable source, I in fact argued for the adherence to Wikipedia verifiability policies with regard to a biography of a living person, way back in 2006. The claim that Dado Pršo was actually using the name Miladin has apparently been a Serbian nationalist talking point on Wikipedia, and I nevertheless extended the assumption of good faith towards the anonymous user who was pushing that POV, trying to explain to them how policies are supposed to work. We got WP:ARBMAC only in late 2007, and from that point forward, this kind of a thinly veiled political advocacy has been easier to deal with.

BTW, User:JamesBWatson, see, this is exactly what I meant when I told you earlier about having been around for a long time and editing in a topic area that is rife with axe-grinding. I get insulted today over a good-faith effort I had engaged in eight years ago. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

(*facepalm*) Classic Joy. The posturing, the scrambling empty rhetoric, the conceit, the dishonest nudge to the admin that recently blocked him for abuse of administrative powers, which can essentially be summarized as "look at me being victimized here, JamesBWatson, look, look, my edits have a statute of limitations after all you know, I told, I told you, I'm surrounded by axe-grinding Serbs out to get me, who don't even mind bringing up things I did 8 years ago" .... it's all here on sad display. I need to go detoxify myself after taking in this much BS in one sitting.Zvonko (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You have serious issues with the WP:BLP policy if you think that anyone is going to interpret my ancient insistence on the use of the name X Y for a person whom all existing sources call X Y, or else insistence on a smattering of sources attesting otherwise - as an act of anything other than trivial, essential policy enforcement. The amount of assumption of bad faith you're showing here should lead to a ban for yourself, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Threatening me with a ban is the best you can do, you're getting less and less creative with each post. As explained to you ages ago, by it seems multiple users, the fact that a relative "smattering" of sources refer to Sol Campbell as "Sulzeer", [[Co Adriaanse] as "Jacobus", Cotton Fitzsimmons as "Lowell", Red Auerbach as "Arnold", Toe Blake as "Joseph Hector"... (and literally hundreds of other examples just to limit it to sports) doesn't mean their first names stopped being what they are and are not worthy of inclusion in their respective bios. Only you see a Serb conspiracy in including Dado Prso's real name in his bio.Zvonko (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not "a Serb conspiracy", it's merely anonymous editors who appear to be interested in promoting an unverified Serbian name claim over the preponderance of verifiable evidence - a glaring violation of WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NOTHERE... Besides, you didn't appear to even check that Sol Campbell's article now actually has a proper inline citation that verifies that full name to what appears to be a book source. If someone simply did that in the case of Pršo's full name, there would be no problem. Instead you appear to prefer to stand on the sidelines for eight years and then start lobbing insults at me. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

But they offered you a bunch of references that you all readily dismissed so how's it an 'unverified claim'? And how did AFP become a 'Serbian unverified name claim'!?..... And yeah sorry for not becoming aware of the Dado Pršo issue earlier so that I could have been keeping a vigil for 8 years beside the Dado Pršo article protecting it against angry Croats who kept removing the references. You know how it is, I was too busy plotting your demise for 8 years and I didn't want to blow my cover too soon.Zvonko (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Er, no, IIRC they offered a link to a single AFP story that mentions this name. When I asked why wasn't this name mentioned in all the other stories, something that would at least attempt to explain this discrepancy, there was no actual answer.--Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You didn't remember correctly, there was more than a single AFP story, but alright.Zvonko (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

As for 8 years - well, you brought this up. How did you become aware of it now? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What a tonally clumsy question. What's really troubling you? Are you suspecting foul play or conspiracy of some sort?

Actually, now that I think about it, I did contact the Serbian state security like I often do for my Wiki editing, especially when Croats, as is the case here, are involved. So, my old buddy at the Serb state security provided me with useful info about your past Wiki editing transgressions. I believe his exact words as he was handing me the envelope in a dark Belgrade underground parking garage were: "Oh yeah, that Croat falsely accused you of being disruptive? That's total WP:HAR! Here's what you hit him with".

Anyway, lest you think the above actually took place (after all you demonstrated yourself here to be bereft of any ability of processing figurative speech), Prso got mentioned during the World Cup TV coverage I watched, something about almost quitting pro football in his mid 20s when only low division clubs wanted him before giving himself one last chance to get something out of his football and eventually making the World Cup squad, signing with Rangers, and so on, so I wikied him and started reading the talk discussion.Zvonko (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what's at play here, and it's not really important, because I ultimately don't see any legitimate reason for these kinds of attacks regardless of how they originated. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, great deflection. You merely asserted that you were misinterpreted in that debate, and that I attacked you in this debate, without providing any actual plausible explanation for anything. Instead, you turned to smearing me with a blatantly flawed argument. And then you have the gall to talk about empty rhetoric. This is true sophistry. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Had you actually bothered to read and look into the context of what i wrote there instead of quick-skimming through swathes of text looking for any ammunition that you can remotely cobble together for the purposes of making me into a "disruptive editor cut from the same cloth as Antidiskriminator" all in a pretty pathetic attempt of disqualifying my opinion here only because it doesn't happen to fit into your current needs, you would've perhaps known what I argued for there. PRODUCER (well known all over Wikipedia for being a lovely, open-minded, balanced, and all around brilliant guy who is in a well-deserved retirement) wanted the article describing what happened to the Sarajevo Serbs and their property in the immediate hours and days post-Ferdinand-assasination on June 28 and 29, 1914 to be named "Anti-Serb demonstrations in Austria-Hungary", a gross misrepresentation in my opinion both spatially and in terms of the nature of what took place. He went about his goal by framing the discussion from the start as a puerile Google Books hits measuring contest garnered with very creative interpretations of the hits while avoiding at all costs the discussion of the gist of the matter of what it is that took place in Sarajevo in those days and coming up with a suitable name for it based on Wikipedia:Name. Several editors, including you followed him along this path while I, among other things, attempted to demonstrate to you all (using extremely clear and simple 4th grade reading level statements of what it is I'm trying to communicate) what an exercise in stupidity this is by offering the sizable number of hit returns for some truly ridiculous terms that definitely do not accurately describe the events yet get some traction. Your concoctions of sinister intent, disruption, or whatever other accusation you're throwing my way make about as much sense as your conduct and reasoning on Talk:Dado Pršo and Dado Pršo, both recent and back in 2006.Zvonko (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we keep this on topic? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The consensus decision of that move discussion (by User:BDD) says clearly that the term "demonstrations" is better and more common in sources than "pogrom" (and then also that "riots" is the best solution). It also says while there wasn't consensus for using the wider geographic scope, there wasn't prejudice to doing so if more content is added. So the two things that the User:PRODUCER proposed to change - he wasn't actually wrong to do so. There was certainly no consensus that it was "puerile", "stupid", or "ridiculous". His initial method wasn't completely precise, because it didn't use quotes in search queries to connect words into phrases, but neither was yours. All you achieved with that flawed argument was to make the discussion that much longer and less focused on building consensus. And with this explanation, it's actually clear that you weren't into it with the necessary assumption of good faith, rather it was just a case of battleground attitude. It's not sinister, but it's definitely disruptive. That you continue to think so badly of your fellow editors is usually a sign that you're not going to become less disruptive when dealing with them in the future. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, Joy, the Disingenuous Univ all-star power forward I talked about earlier is hitting top form again. You accuse me of being disruptive, having battleground attitude, and assuming bad faith for using inductive reasoning and figurative speech!? You're just lobbing baseless accusations my way hoping for, at this point, only you know what. I mean if you were 7 I guess I could take this at face value, but seeing that your probably not 7 I don't know what to say. Either you're very unintelligent or just plain disingenuous, and you're not very unintelligent so.... Also, where did you dream up that "User:BDD says clearly that the term demonstrations is better and more common in sources than pogrom"? He neither says nor implies any comparative quality statements. What he said was "It's certainly correct that pogrom can describe events against ethnic groups besides Jews, however, and that some sources referred to these events as a pogrom. For that reason, there's no need to scrub the word out from the article entirely, though I will naturally be removing some instances of it in connection with the rename." and "There was a preference for riots over demonstrations as a replacement term. As a neutral, I think this is essentially correct. Demonstration conjures up images of people marching with placards, not attacking people and vandalizing property based on ethnic divisions. The term is used in sources, however." Zvonko (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

He would never have even considered the idea of scrubbing the word out from the article entirely had he not thought that it was more appropriate. He was being fair to the minority argument; OTOH you're just wikilawyering now, and continuing to dig a hole for yourself with more of this condescending tripe. We're definitely not exchanging any new information here, so this discussion really needs to end here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Antidiskriminator's comment here is the same old misrepresentation. No, Joy isn't the only person to have issues with Antidiskriminator's editing; many editors in the Balkans have. (All of whom are "involved", by Antidiskriminator's definition). It's not just over one article either, but swathes of articles; misrepresenting sources, cherrypicking, and systematically reverting other peoples' work - regardless of how well it's sourced - if it doesn't fit a radical Serb nationalist POV. Strangely, Antidiskriminator's "vacation" means that he can't explain those problems here, but he still has free time to edit-war over POV-forks like this (He originally wrote it as "Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo", and still talks at length about pogroms, even though it wasn't a pogrom). Some articles have included hoaxes like Serbia's NUTS regions for years - it doesn't matter whether or not these are actual NUTS regions (they aren't); as long as Antidiskriminator is editing, it stays in wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Truth be told, reverting those anonymous blankings, which are probably work of some long-time abuser evading a block, was the correct immediate course of action on the face of it. This is why this is not a simple complaint. Perhaps you can invest some time to explain why that "Demonisation of the Serbs" draft is a bad idea - since on the face of it, it looks like a well-referenced article in the making... it's not necessarily immediately obvious in what way it is tendentious. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: given you proposed, implemented and subsequently lifted the 2012 ARBMAC topic ban on Antidiskriminator, and he has demonstrably engaged in "further tendentious editing on the topic of the Chetniks", I would like your views on the above proposal. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Given what I've just read I'm not sure why we aren't talking about an indef block and community ban. This is exactly the kind of subtle POV pushing that Wikipedia needs less (or none) of. --NellieBly (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks from User:QuackGuru

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 took a look at AN/I logs and see that this user has been topic banned multiple times for things like this. I made my initial contribution [105] to Acupuncture. QG was quick to remove the edits in a very calculated and tenuous manner. I reworked the submission with a better ref and resubmitted. It was removed by another user. After that I did try to reinsert the material but for some reason got an undeserved edit warring warning from User:2over2[106]

Quack started harassing me almost immediately. He claimed that I reposted poor sources against consensus and then went on and on about the sources. He then started hounding me on my talk page which lead first request for Quack to stop hounding me about sources on my talk page. He did not comply with this.

Quack next started destructively editing Myofascial meridians and continuing to spew his toxic Fringe Bias. For the apparent reason of revenge, he gutted an article I was working on. Things have deteriorated from there.

I don't like conflict. I have spent the last few months working on Islamic State (militant group) and related articles and I haven't had a single bad experience. There's certain bad actors that serve no constructive purpose. They thrive on attention and only cause trouble.

I would like to propose an immediate block and have this put forth for review for ban. - Technophant (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of edit warring, the harassment link doesn't look like a personal attack to me. (Non-administrator comment) Dustin (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at my talk page under "Friendly Warning". I asked him politely and firmly to stop bringing source issues to my talk page earlier. - Technophant (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. So User:Technophant has added a bunch of primary sources here [107] among others and than reports QG when he brings it politely to his attention? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

And looking further. In this edit they added content that does not appear to be supported by the ref in question [108]. Unless they come up with some good justification I am thinking a topic ban of User:Technophant from alternative medicine may be in order. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Take a look that a ref Jmh649. It has a Title, date, author, and partial url. The partial url is a minor copy/paste error due to a flakey trackpad. I went and found the proper url and [109] the problem. - Technophant (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

3RR NB filing WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Technophant_reported_by_User:MrBill3_.28Result:_.29 - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the best description of what has been going on is WP:Wikihounding. - Technophant (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you're alone in thinking that, though. I'm afraid "going on and on about the sources" is an integral part of what we do at Wikipedia. It's a good thing, not a bad thing, and it's good that there are users who have the patience for it. Bishonen | talk 16:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

This editor looks an awful lot like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek. Exact same behavior, paranoia, assumptions of bad faith, attacking other editors, topics, etc.. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Brangifer, you know paranoia, ABF and attacking other editors are common as grass in this place, don't you? That leaves only the topics, which is hardly enough for a duck block. That's not saying you're wrong, but I'm not sure the similarities are significant enough to persuade a checkuser to look. A CU has made a check at the Klocek SPI, but it's not closed yet, so maybe you'd like to add this account and ask for another check? Bishonen | talk 17:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

• Technophant, it's not appropriate to take your isues with Acupuncture to multiple boards simultaneously. Your complaint at WP:NPOVN is technically about "a cabal of users hell-bent in making sure acupuncture is completely discredited" [110] while this report here is about QuackGuru, but the meat of them is exactly the same: your dissatisfaction with the users opposing your edits at Acupuncture. Please review Wikipedia: Asking the other parent: It doesn't help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. I'm not sure where this comment goes best, but, since you haven't linked to your other complaint at either of the noticeboards, I suppose I'd better put it on both. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 19 July 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.

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, TheAirplaneGuy and John

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 BS that come's from this guys keyboard 'What the fuck do you think you are playing at? Stand back and let me fix the article, I don't have time to do it all multiple times. And never accuse me of being a vandal. This was agreed in talk.' TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Where did you notify John (talk · contribs) about this ANI discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Yes he notified at WP:ANEW [111]. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

He didn't say where he reported him. And then there's this condescending post:[112] TheAirplaneGuy has been here for 4 years, and John has been here for 8. Maybe there's a long-standing feud between these two? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I can assure you that this is the first time we have crossed paths... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware that your signature is still pointing to your previous ID? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Also, the instructions at the top of this page are pretty explicit: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I was trying to drop a little hint to the OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Par for the course I'm afraid. The following threats of unilateral blocking without benefit of ANI and redacting of editors comments were make in regard to an issue in which John is not an uninvolved admin. [113], [114] and [115]. If it looks like bullying... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the typical behaviour for an admin, but I was threatened with a block by John when I requested him not to remove sources, giving reason for the illogicality of his action. He chose not to discuss it but issued a threat to block instead - the exchange here Hzh (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@TheAirplaneGuy: do you have diffs or links for the alleged bullshit? Protonk (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked TheAirplaneGuy for a day for 3RR vio (not just against John) after coming across this on the article. If an admin wishes to unblock TheAirplaneGuy so they can participate here with the condition that they avoid the article for a day I've got no issue with that (if they ask I'll do it myself). As I said at WP:ANEW I've notified both of the discretionary sanctions in this area with no prejudice to action being taken as a result of this thread. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I notified John of this discussion. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 18:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Should not the article be added to the list of articles under the discretionary sanctions?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Solarra for the notification and thanks Callanecc for the block. I don't have a lot to add. It was discussed and agreed at the article talk that the "reactions" section was over-stuffed with anodyne quotes. The article was tagged to reflect this. I started to work on summarising the important quotes this morning and was bloody annoyed to be repeatedly reverted by TheAirplaneGuy, in one case with an edit summary accusing me of vandalism. I said in my own talk how annoyed I was, then checked their contribs and saw they were blind-reverting most edits to the article, and were at something like 13RR for the day. Reported to AN3 and went about my business. --John (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• Note that heavy edit warring is currently going on in the article, which involves at least four users (+/- 469 bytes reverts)--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not that I'm volunteering, but maybe it's time for full protection and a few admin to babysit the talk page for stuff to add? The problem now is that an edit can get to 13RR (or even 6RR in the event that was hyperbole) and it go unnoticed because of all the other edits to that same page. 72 hours should be sufficient. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  The problem is that the information for the article is changing hourly, and in 72h the article will be hopelessly outdated. And asking for protected edit request will likely be unmanageable. I edited the article though and I am not in a position to protect it or to block anybody for edit warring in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  I've worked a number of these exact types of articles before with full protection. The only way you can do it is have good editors on the talk page rapidly building consensus and a couple of admins making changes to the article based on each consensus and nothing else. It forced people to use the talk page for each point, but it does require an admin or two always babysitting, around the clock. In some circumstances, it is the best way to deal with the problem, where POV and rapid edits are making it impossible to manage warring otherwise. If you block a half dozen people, you may end up making the POV even worse. I'm not saying this is the right answer here and will defer to your judgement, just that sometimes, hardnosed but monitored protection works, even if only for a few hours. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  If there are admins available to monitor the page, may be one can indeed protect it for 24h or so.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • If there is good cause to think it will work, as Dennis indicates, do it. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

    No way. I was taken yesterday to ANI for promising to block a single-purpose account for repeatedly calling the page protection (of the same page) "vandalism". If I protect it now, I will possibly be taken to Arbcom.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone edit warring needs to be blocked. There is no sense in effectively locking down an article about a major current event due to a few people. -- John Reaves 22:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The fundamental dichotomy is between those who believe, as I do, that WP is intended to be an encyclopedia, and those who believe that it's a 24-hour rolling news site. Block the latter. Eric Corbett 22:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support the position of Mr Corbett in this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 22:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It's worse than people wanting to make Wikipedia a 24 hour news cycle. Some editors, like some of the world's political "leaders", are using this incident as an opportunity to say "the Russians are evil and must be punished" or "No, the Ukranians did it", long before we can be certain of either, or not. It's a classic POV platform, being misused in the worst possible way. Unless such editors are QUICKLY sanctioned EVERY time, some protection seems to me to be the only way at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• You're missing the point John Reaves, when the article is this busy, you might have to read through several pages to see the 5th or 6th revert in a day. Blocking everyone is problematic because you end up only blocking some of the people, leading to uneven enforcement. Sometimes, locking it down so no one can edit is exactly the right call, at least for a while, to bring sanity as well as force the editors to seek consensus on the talk page. We aren't cops, we are editors with extra tools, here to build an encyclopedia. Whatever stops disruption and improves the encyclopedia is the best move, and sometimes that is protection for a few hours, even if that pisses a few people off. Some of these people are just getting too excited but they mean well and are simply human. Blocking multiple people should not be the first tool you pull out of the admin kit. And Eric, that is exactly why protection isn't the end of the world when used properly for limited periods of time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Good points Eric and Dennis. I hadn't looked at it that way. I suppose we have talk pages for a reason! -- John Reaves 22:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Article fully protected based on the discussion above. I've made it indefinite, since I don't know how long we normally do for a super-high-profile article like this. 24 hours? 48 hours? A week? Please reduce protection immediately if you're familiar with our normal practice. Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• I would strongly oppose full protection of this page. This is an extremely important and quickly developing event. Even now, the page is in a relatively poor condition. Make 1RR or 2RR restriction for the page if you wish. This can be done because tt falls under EE discretionary sanctions. My impression: recent work with this page was relatively peaceful. Warn or block edit-warriors if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• I also oppose full protection, this is an ongoing crisis full protection will make the article dated over time per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• Information for this article is changing hourly, and within 12 hours, the article will be hopelessly outdated. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, maybe now some people will start to realize just how ill-suited crowd-sourced editing is for current/breaking events. Imagine in the olden days of actual journalism and beat writers, if 50 people had to share one keyboard to write 1 story. Tarc (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• I oppose full protection. A per-case PC2 may be used instead. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 00:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not a thing with TheAirplaneGuy or other editors, but an actual event which needs many updates, see "Current Disaster" template on top of the article. So: Normalgirl (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Cant the two just be topic banned for a week or so? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• With this notice at the top of the talk page - The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. - You would think that admins would have opted for discretionary sanctions against the offending editors, rather than punishing sanctioning all editor's.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Nobody is being punished. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Strike punishment, is sanction better?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Voting: Full protection of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

• Oppose This article needs to be updated quickly, it will be outdated in a few hours. And: it works, look at the page views counter, this article is the strength and core of the shrinking Wikipedia. Admins please accept not to having full control. Normalgirl (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think voting is appropriate here. See WP:NOTAVOTE. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 00:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Now, if you look at the other cases here, there are often votings at the end of the discussion. Even you actually "voted" here. And: its not the time to discuss several days carefully. Normalgirl (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • We admins don't have "control". No admin has put in anything they thought was a good idea, only what the community clearly said passes consensus. And you are correct, this isn't about voting, it is about preventing problems by slowing the editing down to what is clearly passing consensus. Wikipedia isn't CNN, our job isn't to be the most up to date, just timely but more important, accurate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Only admin !votes would be relevant anyhow. I see NG's point about the normal functioning of WP, but IMO it's simply the case that countless users will be coming here seeking to question, undermine, or minimize mainstream reporting and opinion on this event, and as I understand it that's not what WP is for. I started off wanting to say weak oppose (i.e. restore semi-protection, with reservations). But the meta-public debate about perspective and biases that is likely to occur here is, I think, something that WP usually takes pains to avoid. That is supposed to play out in op-eds, letters to editors, comments on news websites, etc. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to help keeping this special article up to date. Normalgirl (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

To clear up a few things: when there is a poll, admin don't get the exclusive right to !vote. Votes aren't counted like 10-4, etc. You need to read WP:CONSENSUS. It is more complicated than that, and sometimes discussion are decided against the numeric vote because the minority presented better policy based rationales. Admin are just editors like you, but we are editors that the community has vetted and determined we can be trusted to enact the will of the community using those tools (because it wouldn't be practical to give everyone the tools). We aren't super users. Admin generally are very experienced editors, however. And Normalgirl, we try to never use protection on articles except when we have to. I would expect protection to be lifted soon. It is ironic that so few people are bothering to use the talk page, which is odd. You are new and not familiar with our policies, which is fine (welcome, by the way, I hope you stick around!). The problem is when 100 new editors who don't know the rules are editing, it becomes impossible to enforce the policies because 100 people are reverting back and forth and arguing. We don't like protecting, but sometimes it is what we must do for a short while. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:19, 20 July 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: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.

---

Hi I am Tamravidhir. I have a problem and the problem which I am facing is that there is this article, Bade Achhe Lagte Hain, which is an article on an Indian soap opera. Bade Achhe Lagte Hain is a Hindi phrase. It's difficult to make a direct translation, but the phrase vaguely means "looks too nice". The thing is that I have made major edits to this article. In fact its the article which has been most edited by me. I have added some useful information, kept in mind that "Michelangelo created David by cutting out what was not David" and kept the plot short and blah blah and blah. And what should be mentioned is that I have added extensive references to reliable sources such as articles published by national newspapers. And now there is a user known as TheRedPenOfDoom who has always dismissed the article saying that the references cannot be accepted "as per Wikipedia guidelines" and has been keeping on deleting the information which has no reference. I have almost ended up doing an edit war. This user is the only user with whom I have had terrible experiences. Now, after a break the user has come back and is again deleting information. Firstly, the soap opera aired at 10:30 pm so that means that it is late evening, and there's even a reference regarding the time slot but he says that: You may NOT keep reinserting your personal interpretations of "sporadic" or "very late" without providing a reliably published source that verifies the claim.

Except this there is also an info which says that the soap opera's broadcast on Thursdays in 2014 was sporadic. The user again says that there is no reference so he or she has been deleting the info. I guess that there is a "citation needed" tag which I have add now. But I have seen many article without references or such tags in the lead paragraph. For instance, the article The Simpsons and there are more, such as How I Met Your Mother and Muhteşem Yüzyıl. And I don't know why the user is always up to prove me wrong! He or she is somewhat engaged in WP:BITE.

And this is not ending by a healthy discussion. And the biggest problem is that we have discussed the matter in our personal talk pages and note the article talk page. The is very dominating, dogmatic and adamant. It will lead to something terrible after which I would have to take a long break and come back later (now I think that I would have to). I don't want that to happen. So I want help. Please help me. I would also like you to know what another user has written on his talk page:

I saw what you did at Supriya Pathak. I asked you nicely but you took it on your ego and vented your frustration by blanking more sections of the page. If you really want to remove unsourced or poorly sourced info then why don't you give some time to other editors so that they can properly add sources. You are clearly discouraging other editors who are still learning like me. You just want to be superior to others. First you want sources and when you are provided with them, you call them bad and unreliable. You should be encouraging people but it seems like you are on a mission to prove something. Sorry for my this behavior but you kind of disappointed and demoralized me today...

And this is true. I am not hatching a plot against the mentioned user, but just expressing my views and opinions and begging for help. Help this poor user! Please I need a help! The user is just not understanding. There has to be my fault but what the user is doing is also wrong and s/he is not understanding it. S/he just boasts about Wikipedia rules even if he doesn't know how to properly use and implement them. Please help me. I will be more than grateful to you!Thank you! --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Tamravidhir: this appears to be a content dispute. Please follow the steps at WP:DR. I see you have added a "citation needed" tag, but this is to show unsourced content and not to replace a citation. Additionally, please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - just because one article is lacking in sources does not mean every other article on Wikipedia needs to go down the slippery slope of less and less sources. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 16:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Further, Tamravidhir, once an editor has challenged information as untrue, no editor can restore that data without providing an inline citation that directly supports the information being provided. Tags do not suffice. In general, attracting TheRedPenofDoom's attention can be an unpleasant experience, but in these matters he is typically right. Material needs sources, and your opinions about what constitute "sporadic" or "late" require citations to support your characterizations.—Kww(talk) 17:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The only "complaint" I have about TRPoD is that he hasn't taken Tupac Shakur (back) to good article status yet. Other than that, this looks like a content dispute. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom is blunt but a very knowledgeable and capable editor. If he is removing sections, odds are very good that policy is on his side when removing it. I suggest taking a different tact and engaging him, learn from him. Much of that cut info may be able to be restored if it was properly sourced, so your best chance for success is working with him, and don't work against him. Just ask "why is it removed, and if I sourced this, would it make sense to put it back?", and accept his answers for now. I know this is difficult at first, but it has some very good rewards if you do. He isn't unreasonable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This user has been vandalizing several pages asking for source and when the source is added, still he/she removes it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourcepen (talk • contribs) 11:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The above editor appears to be a sock of HofKal (talk · contribs) and one or more IP's. I have no idea who's in the right in this edit-war. But I have notified RedPen about Sourcepen and HofKal, and likewise AIV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

An admin has now blocked both ID's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 19 July 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.

Trident13

Per the permission guidelines and the issue at large, I've brought my concern here for community review.

I've recently encountered a number of copyright concerns by Trident13 that I feel are egregious enough (at a minimum) to warrant the removal of his reviewer and autopatrol user rights. My first encounter of the issue was Trident13's close paraphrasing copyright violation at Soughton Hall. (Please see this Wikilegal post for addition information on close paraphrasing.) Upon further investigation, I found there are additional reports that demonstrate similar copyright violations. (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#LA_Models) Digging further into the issue reveals over 200 articles where Trident13 posted the content of copyrighted pages onto an article, used a NOINDEX tag or hid the text in comment lines, and then paraphrased the content. (See his move log. Most of the concerning pages were located in his userspace and then moved into the namespace. The majority are tagged with "into production".) This is an issue that has continued, despite being notified in October 2011. Some of these actions have been brought into question on COIN and Trident13 has not responded to the concerns in over a week.

In addition, Justlettersandnumbers, Jytdog, and Fuhghettaboutit have raised concerns of his failure to disclose possible conflicts of interest under the new terms of use. (See the COI case posted above).

There is a required level of trust and familiarity with our core policies to hold these rights. I don't feel that Trident13 meets these criteria. I would like to invite the community to discuss the proposal to remove these permissions and if any additional sanctions should be implemented. Any administrator assistance in the revision deletion of the affected articles would be greatly appreciated. Best, Mike V • Talk 06:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: Not endorsing the proposal, just making it simple to snout count. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀}

But Wikipedia is WP:NOTAVOTE, and an issue like this doesn't even need support/oppose !voting the panda ₯’ 09:49, 19 July 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.

---

As proposed: In response to multiple acts of copyright infringement, the community removes Trident13's reviewer and autopatrolled rights. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Trident13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Support

• My understanding is that users with these rights should be aiming to make ths situation (copyvio etc.) beter not worse. If they are unable or unwilling to employ the correct use of their own edits then it feels improper that they are evaluating others in the same manner.Amortias (T)(C) 09:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Why are we even discussing this? Yank the bits. They aren't prizes, they are granted based on trust, no discussion is even needed in a case like this. For that matter, if you have 200 cases of copyright infringement, you need to indef block him while it gets sorted out. Really, this is cut and dry. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  To add: behavior problems are one thing and I'm always willing to talk it out with editors in those cases, but copyright has legal implications that can involve the foundation, and gross violations put a tremendous burden on the system, which is already overtaxed. If I had a list of those articles or proof of infringement in front of me, I would have blocked him myself, but I can't without seeing and verifying the evidence personally. If you have it, just do it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Going to toss my hat here, per Dennis Brown ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

• No his rights shouldn't be removed. Just educate him about why he's wrong. That's what WP:AGF is all about. 117.177.79.37 (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Wikilink above. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Since I'm not a registered user, I have to support him here. I don't think he's a bad faith contributor and we can't remove his rights after all the great stuff he's done for our project. 197.232.17.196 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 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.

Copyright Infringement

• Note As already stated, permissions are about trust, and I have removed them. The additional issue about blocking and other actions should still be under discussion the panda ₯’ 09:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I originally wrote the above as a proposal as that appeared to be the intention of Mike V. I apologize if I made things more difficult or cumbersome. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀}

Per DangerousPanda I'll rewrite the prior proposal as thus:

Proposal: Trident13 has violated the community trust by committing multiple acts of copyright violations and as such is indefinitely blocked from the English Wikipedia. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 10:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the enthusiasm, but if he has 200 copyvios and I can see them, I will just block him. That is one of those things that doesn't require a vote, as there is plenty of previous consensus on it. There are some COI issues at WP:COI but those don't bother me so much since the TOS for WMF sites recently changed. Copyright infringement is the most serious offense you can do here because of the legal problems and sheer expense to the Foundation. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

...and we don't need "proposals" or !votes for everything. No need to set them up the panda ₯’ 11:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I see a ton of deleted contribs that worry me, but I can't do a complete investigation right now. I'm soon to be off to visit a relative in ICU, so pardon if I can't follow up for a while. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hope all's well Dennis! the panda ₯’ 11:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Following up on Dennis Brown, I see this CCI investigation, Soughton Hall (check the history), Michael Hogben, and maybe some others. Trident has a considerable number of contributions, deleted or otherwise, so sifting through them will take a little time. My first impression (which may change wildly as I search more) is that there are copyvio problems but nothing close to "200 copyvios". Again, there are lots of edits to search through so that's not a complete estimate yet. Justlettersandnumbers, you seem to be following this issue closely. Can you point us toward the specific articles and edits which you found, beyond those listed at CCI now? Protonk (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

One example would be here. While the current article may not infringe on copyright, as it has developed over time by the community, the history still needs to be revision deleted. The articles found in the log above follow a similar pattern. Mike V • Talk 14:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

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.

---

Od rance mate is inserting the same contentious text into multiple articles across Wikipedia about the recent airplane crash and not doing any other constructive editing. He's been warned multiple times, but is continuing the activity. I'd give diffs, but all the edits on his contributions page are the same thing, q.v.. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

He appears to have ceased - hasn't edited in 11 minutes. But these attacks are nothing new, since the first place most people go to when they have their own theories as to who did this and who did that when big events happen is, aside from Facebook and Twitter, Wikipedia. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 15:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Already blocked by User:Kelapstick, just needs closing. Amortias (T)(C) 15:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That was just Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Runtshit casually exploiting the deaths of ~300 people to harass an editor he doesn't like. Next time, and there will be a next time, there's no need for anyone to waste their time issuing warnings. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:47, 18 July 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.

Continuation of disruptive activity by a SPA 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:Djmex9205 is a SPA account that has been causing disruption at Motion picture rating system. Their conduct was reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive250#User:Djmex9205 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 48 h) where they received a 48 hour block.

Another SPA account was registered today as User:RazorShotter and has yet again installed the same disruptive and unsourced edit at the same article: [116]. This edit was followed by an act of vandalism just 20 minutes later by the original SPA, Djmex9205, which was reverted by a Cluebot. The editors are clearly one and the same, since they enclose their edit summaries with the same typography i.e. /* Comparison */

I don't think this editor is here to serve any useful service so please will someone disable both accounts permanently, and perhaps put the article under semi-protection to prevent further disruption by SPAs. Betty Logan (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"/* Comparison */" is the name of the sub-section they're working on. That's a default edit summary. They're edit-warring over the color of a rating tag? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Last week, Djmex was edit warring with the bot. I'm starting to think there is a CIR issue at hand. I don't definitive reasons to think RazorShotter same person, although the slightly paranoid first edit to their own talk page is odd and they may know each other. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell from the diffs, but there is a clear explanation at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#US_PG_rating. Basically what they were initially doing (and what the new SPA has continued doing) is installing an age restriction on the American PG rating that does not exist. The MPAA does not stipulate an age restriction for the PG rating at all (the PG-13 rating is a separate rating and already accounted for in the table). The MPAA source is provided in the article itself and at the discussion on the talk page. Since then they have started adding false summaries to the guidelines, and in the most recent edit they have changed one of Mexico's color bars so it contradicts Mexico's age rating guidelines. This isn't a content dispute, these are edits that flat-out contradict the age rating summaries and their sources. Betty Logan (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked both, the diffs made it clear, plus behavior. Socking, CIR, WP:DE, etc. Too much coincidence here, socking is the only possible answer. I tried to see them as just "friends", but in the end, the behavior is just too similar. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and semi-protected one month as well, since obviously they are willing to sock to introduce that info. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out. Betty Logan (talk) 14:57, 17 July 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 180.149.12.173

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

---

IP 180.149.12.173 has been adding large amounts of copyrighted and unsourced content to GMB Akash, unfortunately too quickly and persistently for me to have any chance to improve the article. Content is being copied from one of the subject's many website or social media pages, for example http://www.akash-images.com/exibitions.php and http://gmbakash.wordpress.com/profile/ (it's pretty evident because it's generally written in the first person singular). Can someone block this IP and/or semi-protect the page from IP edits? Sionk (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for copyright violations after a final warning. Chillum 18:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

WP:CRYSTAL and appointment of Catholic bishops

Currently affected articles:

• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cologne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rainer Woelki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Archbishop of Cologne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Current discussions:

• Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cologne#Woelki has not yet been installed and is not archbishop of Cologne until that time
• User talk:Elizium23#Archdiocese of Cologne

Users involved:

• Jamesbondfan (talk · contribs)
• Aa75253 (talk · contribs)
• 124.150.17.249 (talk)

Past discussions and affected articles are available on User talk:Elizium23#Appointment of Catholic Bishops. The chronic problem here on Wikipedia is that Catholic bishops are put into their offices before their installation dates. This is analogous to a Presidential Inauguration, in that the bishop does not have possession or control of the diocese before that time that he takes it. Unfortunately, the news media makes a lot of noise when the appointments happen, and less when the installations occur, and so the tendency is to report the news as if it has already happened. Further complicating matters are unreliable sites such as gcatholic.org and catholic-hierarchy.org which don't make the distinction. This is an intractable problem because it is spread out over many articles, over a long period of time, and many editors who aren't regulars. There aren't enough regulars available to patrol here as I've tried at least twice on WT:CATHOLIC to generate consensus. The last straw for me, which brings me here today, is a profanity-laden accusation of vandalism and personal attack by Jamesbondfan. Quite unnecessary and over-the-top. I have always sought to uphold policy and be civil in this matter. Elizium23 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

In your first example, at least, it says so-and-so "2014-present". I assume what you mean is that it's some later date in 2014. Maybe if the specific date were given, it would clarify things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The mention of a future bishop does not belong in infoboxes, lists, or succession boxes, or otherwise portrayed as current in the article. It's fine to talk about the appointment in the article prose. But doesn't it seem a little ridiculous for a space that's supposed to list incumbent officers to include a future date? Elizium23 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

What is being added is most absolutely not "speculative or unconfirmed" data. That's what WP:CRYSTAL refers to, not the misplacing of data - and that's all this is. The editors merely misunderstood the difference between the announcement date of an installation and the installation date itself. I don't agree with expletive-ridden replies, but you wouldn't have got one if you'd explained the issue to Jamesbondfan instead of templating him with a completely inaccurate template. Again, the problem here is not that the information was speculative: there was an official announcement. --NellieBly (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If you would prefer, I can use the "factual error" template to be added, because this adding to lists and infoboxes as "already in office" is plain inaccurate. Elizium23 (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

How about if you enter the date the guy is scheduled to start the job? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That's what i did! i translated the cologne release into english and that's what i got! --Jamesbondfan (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)--Jamesbondfan)

It shows Woelki as the current officeholder. Is that correct? Or is the previous guy still in there? Or is it technically "vacant" at present? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Code of Canon Law: Diocesan Bishops; Code of Canon Law: The Vacant See. It's presently sede vacante. What happens is that the outgoing bishop tenders his resignation to the Holy See and it's accepted nunc pro tunc (now for later) and he continues as bishop while a search is undertaken. Then the appointment of the new bishop is announced, and typically this goes together with the acceptance of the outgoing bishop's resignation. At that point the see is vacant. The incoming bishop retains his previous post and his title of e.g. "Archbishop of Berlin" but his powers are limited to that of a diocesan administrator. See also, Appointment of Catholic bishops. Elizium23 (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

So if the guy has not actually assumed his new duties yet, then the article should say "pending" or some such. Like a newly-elected US President is the "President-elect" until he assumes office on January 20. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the infobox reflect the actual state of matters instead of a future one? Elizium23 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The article should state, somewhere within it, that so-and-so is scheduled to take office later this year. Currently it doesn't, and if you just say "vacant" in the infobox, without an explanation, the article is uninformative. The explanation you gave above, about how it works, should be incorporated into the article as a generic explanation, and then add the name of the guy who is the "pending" officeholder. Then it becomes informative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the news can be discussed in the article prose. I have never opposed that. But I don't see the point of cluttering up what is supposed to be a current, factual list or infobox by putting two things into it. If it's sede vacante until the next installation then read the article to find out who is incoming! Elizium23 (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If he's not actually in office yet, he shouldn't be stated flatly as the office holder. But I don't see why he couldn't still be in the infobox, with an abbreviated explanation, so that the reader knows immediately what's going on: vacant (so-and-so pending). Something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Because an infobox is for current, concise information, not to cover all the possibilities. He has no powers of office yet. Do you also suggest, in the BLP of the bishop, to write both offices everwhere with (current) and (pending) next to them? Elizium23 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is to inform the reader. If I want to know who the guy is, the word "vacant" without an explanation is useless, and makes Wikipedia look stupid. Rule number 1, which trumps everything else: "Try not to make Wikipedia look stupid." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

So this was wrong, then? Elizium23 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

What about this stupidity from 2008? Elizium23 (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference: there's a much longer period of time between the appointment and the installation of a bishop (months, sometimes) than there is between the appointment and the swearing-in of a US Cabinet minister (hours to days) - and not even a micro-instant between the end of one Presidential term and another. But we shouldn't be templating regular editors in any event whatsoever for a good-faith mistake. --NellieBly (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What, specifically? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"Installation of foo scheduled on" whenever or "installation pending" or similar are options. Again, though, I think calling attention to this at WP:MOSBIO would probably get some help. John Carter (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Question: Has anyone ever tried to get MOSBIO to address all announcement/installation discrepancies in general? I imagine there are at least some others, and I think maybe having clear guidelines what to do with these matters might help. Maybe having uniform infobox standards for announcement and installation (or similar) could be made too. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that US Presidents are not a good comparison; a better one would be British (and other) monarchs, whose reign is dated from the day they succeed to the throne, even though their coronation will take a few months to organize. In practice the bishops appear to get their feet under the new desk pretty immediately, whatever canon law says, and I'm inclined to think we should generally ignore the fact they are not formally installed yet, on grounds of substance over form. Mind you there used to be cases like Spearhafoc, apparently appointed as Bishop of London in 1051, but never formally installed for political reasons, who eventually got fed up and vanished with the diocesan treasury, which he had been controlling. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

But they don't. They still have their previous office to take care of. Take the common case of a priest elected as bishop - Wikipedia immediately dubs them bishops, puts them in bishop categories, gives them a bishop infobox, and they're not even ordained yet. They're canonically incapable of "getting their feet under the desk". And so is an incoming, transferred bishop. Elizium23 (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute between User:Markdabner and User:Mark Heins on List of people who have run across Australia

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.

---

These two editors have been reverting edits over the edition of Sarah Mycroft on the page. All I know is that her run is controversial. Usually in these cases the person is still mentioned, but the controversy is explained. However, both these editors have been going back and forth on the edition and have violated the 3RR. I warned both after the violated it and told them to discuss it. However, both persisted and Markdabner warned Mark Heins on vandalism in his 'attempt' to start a dialog which is not appropriate for a content dispute.

The first communication with Mark Heins about his 'controversial' addition was added by User:150.101.108.212 (from the email the IP user left seems to be Mark Dabner) to Mark Heins' talk page was deeply inappropriate and is the start of the no communication and just revert that both editors have done.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To be honest, this is a content dispute, and not the right venue for these sort of issues. However, I reported both users to AN3, I suggest we let that process play out. To be frank, the childish behavior of both of these editors is disappointing. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 18:45, 19 July 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.

Antidiskriminator

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.

---

Required reading (sorry):

• Talk:Đurđevdan uprising generally
• User talk:Joy#Đurđevdan uprising + User talk:Antidiskriminator/Archive 9#Re: Đurđevdan uprising
• User talk:Joy#My queries about your Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions + User talk:Antidiskriminator/Archive 9#Re: My queries about your Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions
• User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 33#Antidiskriminator
• User talk:Joy#"Another hodgepodge created by trawling Google search results" + User talk:Antidiskriminator/Archive 9#Re: "Another hodgepodge created by trawling Google search results"
• User talk:Joy#Đurđevdan uprising II + User talk:Antidiskriminator#Re: Đurđevdan uprising

This series of unproductive communications between User:Antidiskriminator and myself has crossed the line between annoyingly bizarre and disruptive. After months of discussion, we're clearly not making any substantial progress, because today Antidiskriminator actually explicitly accused me on the article talk page of conspiring with User:Peacemaker67 to molest him, acting against consensus, having no support outside of a purported tag team, etc. To add insult to injury, that's in reply to a discussion where we actually had a new user (User:Roches) post a lengthy critique of Ad's choices that touched on all the issues that I raised earlier, and then some.

One of the links above is from when I had asked User:EdJohnston, the admin who had last topic-banned Antidiskriminator over unhelpful Talk page behavior, and then unbanned him, to review that decision. He suggested more discussion at the time. In any event, this doesn't have to be adjudicated by a single person, so I'm bringing it up here. With regard to admin involvement, I have to also mention a recent incident where I was blocked by User:JamesBWatson after having imposed blocks in a manner that could have reasonably put my impartiality into question. An unfortunate coincidence is that this story also involved Antidiskriminator, and he's proceeded to use that against me in discussions.

Yes, it's possible to continue toiling away at this rate, engaging in numerous mind-numbing discussions, !voting in numerous RMs, fixing various unreliable source issues, and trying to make sense of user talk. But it's an unreasonable drain on our collective resources. Volunteer time is a scarce commodity, and we shouldn't waste it on repeating the same errors and error corrections all the time.

I have no intention of using my admin powers here (despite the myriad slaphappy accusations by Ad of how I'm abusing them...), and instead I'm asking for others to help. Some sort of a topic ban should be imposed that would break this disruptive pattern. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67

This has been literally going on for several years. The only time I have experienced Antidiskriminator not behaving in this way is during his ARBMAC topic ban on Pavle Đurišić, imposed (and later lifted) by User:EdJohnston. Since the lifting of his topic ban on 10 January, Antidiskriminator has started over 45 new sections on Talk:Pavle Đurišić, making over 560 edits on the talk page. In the entire history of the article, he has made only 46 edits in article space. A quick skim of the talk page and its two most recent talk page archives will give you a taste of the behaviour, which includes him placing "Not resolved" tags on threads, and refusing to edit in article space despite the fact that on numerous occasions there has been no opposition to material being added. It has recently been extended to Talk:Vojislav Lukačević, where Antidiskriminator has started 19 new talk page sections since 17 June.

Because of the incredibly frustrating behaviour, circular discussions and constant going off on tangents, my judgement has slipped on a couple of occasions, and I have consequently unilaterally imposed a ban on interacting with Antidiskriminator on both these articles unless he first edits in article space. This appears to have had no effect, but at least now I am not being drawn into more and more discussions that go nowhere, and his WP:IDHT approach. I have also banned him from posting on my user talk page, because he was effectively harassing me there as well. The evidence is that the lifting of the topic ban has only encouraged him to continue with his disruptive behaviour, and that it is getting worse. I consider that a three month topic ban on Yugoslavia in WWII (broadly construed) would be appropriate, and might have the desired effect of getting him to ameliorate his behaviour. If it doesn't have the desired effect, an indefinite ban will probably be necessary. He just isn't making enough of a contribution to the encyclopedia to justify the disruption. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I will add, for anyone watching this, that Antidiskriminator is not only aware of this discussion (because Joy obviously advised him), but since it was logged, he has been busily working away in areas that are not the subject of this discussion, with over 75 edits in less than two days. I am afraid that he has no respect for consensus-based processes, he just soldiers on regardless, in the hope that it will just go away and he can return to the same pattern of behaviour. God help the editors that work in late 19th century/early 20th century Serbian history, because that is what he is editing now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by IJA

I think it is fair to say that me and Antidiskriminator don't see eye to eye. I'm no angel, but then again Antidiskriminator is certainly no angel either. He isn't the easiest editor to work with, but then again, neither am I. In February he went through a phase of harassing me on my talk page making weird comments, making false accusations (mainly that I was personally attacking people when I hadn't) and just general spamming. [117] and [118] I warned Antidiskriminator back then to stop harassing my talk page [119]. After this, he stopped harassing my talk page. I had previously told him that "Your harassment and spamming on my talk page is irritating. I will be deleting anything you post on here." I just wanted to be left alone and not have a constant barrage of comments from him on my talk page. It is like he has to have the final word on everything.
I recently spent ages upgrading the history on the "Prizren" article and Antidiskriminator just out of the blue reverted it and he tried justifying it by saying that the history added to the article makes Serbs look "particularly bad". All I was trying to do was upgrade the history section and he wanted to censor bits he didn't like. As a Brit, I know we have one of the darkest histories in the world, but I'd never say we shouldn't include something on Wikipedia because it makes Brits look "particularly bad". This was blatant stonewalling by Antidiskriminator.
I'm in no position to say whether or not he should be topic banned and I certainly don't think it would be fair of me either as I tend to have disagreements with Antidiskriminator. This is Wikipedia, everyone should be free to edit. I think it is worth mentioning that Antidiskriminator can be a useful editor and he does sometimes make useful contributions to Wikipedia, even though he does tend to be a thorn in my side. He can be an asset at times. Regards IJA (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

From my own experience with Antidiskriminator, I would second Joy's and Peacemaker's complaints. It's difficult to provide diffs because it's just such a pervasive and diffuse long-term pattern of behaviour, but Antidiskriminator is certainly one of the most persistently tendentious and stubborn actors in the field – usually keeping below the threshold of admin intervention by avoiding overly perspicuous edit-warring sprees and incivility, but persistently obstructing discussions through stonewalling and refusal to get the point, coupled with tendentious and poor-quality editing in articles. I've unfortunately got involved in disagreements with him on a small number of occasions myself, so I probably no longer count as uninvolved (although I have no involvement in any of the disputes Joy is talking about), but I'd say it's high time somebody pulled the WP:ARBMAC trigger on him again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Joy and Peacemaker, but Fut.Perf. has really hit the nail on the head. Antidiskriminator occasionally does something blatant, like adding hoax content, tag-teaming with obvious socks, using fake numbers, creating pov-forks &c.; but really the main problem is the pervasive low-level pov-pushing on Balkan history and geography, and the stonewalling. It's been going on for years. bobrayner (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Pm67 proposed a three-month topic ban above. The previous topic ban, narrower in scope, lasted between 2012-11-02 and 2014-01-10, that is, 14 months. If there is consensus that the previous topic ban had no positive effect, I see no point in a new topic ban that is shorter than 14 months, and the scope also has to be wider. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. bobrayner (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin therefore I don't believe it is my place to say what ban, if any ban at all Antidiskriminator should get. IJA (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to be an admin, IJA. WP is run by the community, which empowers admins to do certain tasks on its behalf. They are a bit like the police in that respect, they operate with the consent of the community. If community consent is withdrawn, the mop is taken away. That doesn't mean we are governed by the admins, or that they are the only ones whose opinions matter. For Joy and Bob, I believe a shorter but much wider ban would permit the community to see if Antidiskriminator can edit outside Yugoslavia in WWII without being disruptive. That topic is my concern here, because that is where I deal with his behaviour. However, you and others may be aware of other areas where he is being disruptive, in which case the scope of the ban should be widened further, perhaps to include anything to do with Serbia or Serbs (broadly construed). If he returns to the behaviour demonstrated after the ban ends, then I think the only answer is an indefinite site ban, just as he has on Serbian WP (for similar behaviour). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT the topic area that encompasses the articles where I've noticed Antidiskriminator to have been disruptive would be 20th-century Serbian history, broadly construed. That should cover both the '09 Dedijer book stuff at Talk:Skaramuca and the '90s war stuff at Talk:Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars. Since we have a pretty clear case of recidivism here, I just don't see a point in a short length ban, but obviously anything is better than nothing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't work on the World War 2 stuff if you paid me, because the editing environment there is so toxic. I work on other topics, for instance more recent Balkan history; but where that involves Serbia, it involves Antidiskriminator, and similar problems appear - kneejerk reverts, stonewalling, pov-forks, misrepresentation, &c. There is also highly asymmetric use of sources - where content fits a Serb-nationalist POV, sourcing requirements are very low; but where it doesn't fit that POV, suddenly even the strongest sources are somehow disqualified and the content swiftly removed. More frustrating is that when some other (more blatant) pov-pusher (or sockpuppet) appears on the scene and other editors are trying to contain the damage, Antidiskriminator gives the POV-warrior support and helps them with a few reverts. For instance, the most destructive Balkan POV-warriors who have been kicked off the project seem to have one thing in common: Antidiskriminator gave them barnstars (Example 1, 2 3, 4 5). As far as the scope of a topic ban is concerned, I am pragmatic. I just want to make it possible for other editors to fix some of our neutrality problems. Half the scope means half the benefit, but that's better than nothing at all. bobrayner (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

What about Serbia and Serbs from 1900-? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. There are probably some potential conflicts in the 19th century (or in the Ottoman era), but I think your proposal would tackle the most serious problems. bobrayner (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a more appropriate topic ban would be a ban on topics involving/ relating to "Serbs, Serbia, Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslavia" 1900 to Present? This way it will stop any topic ban from being loosely interpreted. IJA (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for a topic ban on Antidiskriminator

Consensus from the two involved (Joy) and possibly involved (Future Perfect) admins and the other editors in this thread (bobrayner and I) appears to be coalescing around proposing a ban on Antidiskriminator editing in topics involving "Serbs and Serbia 1900-current" (broadly construed). Given we have yet to get any non-involved admin comment on this thread so far, and Antidiskriminator appears to be avoiding the issue, I believe it is appropriate to make a formal topic ban proposal for the admins here to consider. I would particularly like to get User:EdJohnston's perspective, given he was the one who lifted the original, much narrower ban. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support, I tried to work with to three requested moves and Antidiskriminator's "stonewalling" wasted a lot of time and energy in the moves, repeating things which weren't accurate or had be refuted, and it spread to other pages like user talk and move review. Now Look What You've Done (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hours after I supported a topic ban, sockpuppets have started reverting my old edits, like this [120] :-( Now Look What You've Done (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• People, what we need here is more input from uninvolved observers. As much as I would want this topic ban to happen, it's no use for us involved people to be proposing or "!voting" for things here. Without outside attention, nothing's gonna happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sadly, FP, if we don't make some attempt to progress it, it will just get archived as "too hard" by the admins that work here every day, because those admins aren't willing to dip their toes into ARBMAC territory, because that is generally not where they work. I've been here before, and I'm sure you and Joy have seen it too. That is the reality of bringing anything of mild complexity and longevity to this board. Easy stuff gets dealt with quite quickly. That is why I have tried to progress it, given it is already half-way up the current list, with no uninvolved admin comment at all, even from Ed Johnston, who was the one who lifted the ban. Frankly, I think that the admins that were involved in the original ARBMAC discussion, the ban and the lifting of the ban should make some time to at least give it their opinion. Short of pinging them, what else is a non-admin supposed to do? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support, it has taken me hours to read the history of Pavle Đurišić and other pages, but that is the problem: The tendentious editing of Antidiskriminator, and always arguing over any little detail for POV. I am not sure about how long the ban should be. I don't think I'm involved, at worst I did give a WP:3O on a different Serbia page, years ago. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 17:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for spending the time reviewing the history, Dentalplanlisa. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed much of the material on the Đurđevdan uprising, which led me to the conclusion that a topic ban is warranted at this time. My previous interaction with Antidiskriminator was at The Holocaust, where my perception was that he intended to block the removal of peripheral content from the article, which meant it would be impossible for the article to reach GA status. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• I was briefly involved there too, and his behaviour there was classic Antidiskriminator, working every angle to retain POV material. The question of "is the mass killing of Serbs in the NDH part of the Holocaust" is a victim-centred Serb POV issue from the 90's which is well documented by a wide range of scholars. I don't think your involvement there makes you "involved", Diannaa. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Starting from tomorrow I will be on holiday and may not respond swiftly to queries. I expect to be able to reply to questions with not more than 24-48 hours delay. With all due respect for a group of editors (who were all except Dentalplanlisa involved in disputes with me) I don't think they presented valid arguments for sanctions against me. I still believe that Joy should simply initiate WP:RM as explained to him multiple times, also by another administrator in his replies (diff and diff) to Joy's and Peacemaker67's complaint about my conduct. If in the meantime the consensus is reached that Joy was right that there was something wrong with my editing, I sincerely apologize in advance and promise not to repeat same mistake in future. All the best!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's good timing. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I disagree with the tendentious editing accusation being leveled at Antidiskriminator. I don't see much wrong with his contributions overall. Or I should say I don't see anything more wrong with them than with the contributions of the involved editors preparing the groundwork for his ban here. He's clearly got an inherent bias when it comes to Balkan history, as do many of the editors going after him here. Skullduggery and douchery, whether active or passive, that stem from those opposing views and biases have long been the editing norm on those articles and this proposal is basically just another battlefield of a fued that's long crossed over into personal territory.Zvonko (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I pretty much expected you to say something like this after how you behaved at Talk:Anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo - a lot of general claims that just don't hold up to scrutiny. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the sinful "behaviour" of utilizing cognitive capabilities and coming up with output different from yours. Oh, the blasphemy! You should seriously consider suggesting a ban for my "behaviour".Zvonko (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If it were only so innocuous. You advocated, in rather strong words, a position that was a essentially a trivially disingenuous misreading of search engine output, which in turn had to be explicitly debunked by myself and several other users - and then you failed to acknowledge the error, let alone change your !vote or even apologize for insisting on something so easily disproven. So, like I said, I don't really expect you to understand what Antidiskriminator's disruptive behavior is, when you willfully engage in it as well. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, you would definitely know about disingenuity and disruption, I'll give you that. This is why you're so comfortable accusing others of it. Psychological projection is one helluva a defense mechanism. From pretending Dado Pršo's first name isn't Miladin, and blatantly ignoring reliable sources confirming so, to this episode where you're a.) misinterpreting my position on a different talk page and b.) attaching sinister intent on my part, both in a pathetic little attempt of disqualifying my opinion when it comes to this ban proposal - it's just the kind of obnoxiousness that's par for the course with you. Also, lest anyone takes your distortions at face value, the only thing you and "several other users" (by which you mean PRODUCER, another all-star power forward from the same school of disingenuous as you who got forced into early retirement) "debunked" are your own concoctions that have nothing to do with what I argued for.Zvonko (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I most certainly did not blatantly ignore any reliable source, I in fact argued for the adherence to Wikipedia verifiability policies with regard to a biography of a living person, way back in 2006. The claim that Dado Pršo was actually using the name Miladin has apparently been a Serbian nationalist talking point on Wikipedia, and I nevertheless extended the assumption of good faith towards the anonymous user who was pushing that POV, trying to explain to them how policies are supposed to work. We got WP:ARBMAC only in late 2007, and from that point forward, this kind of a thinly veiled political advocacy has been easier to deal with.

BTW, User:JamesBWatson, see, this is exactly what I meant when I told you earlier about having been around for a long time and editing in a topic area that is rife with axe-grinding. I get insulted today over a good-faith effort I had engaged in eight years ago. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

(*facepalm*) Classic Joy. The posturing, the scrambling empty rhetoric, the conceit, the dishonest nudge to the admin that recently blocked him for abuse of administrative powers, which can essentially be summarized as "look at me being victimized here, JamesBWatson, look, look, my edits have a statute of limitations after all you know, I told, I told you, I'm surrounded by axe-grinding Serbs out to get me, who don't even mind bringing up things I did 8 years ago" .... it's all here on sad display. I need to go detoxify myself after taking in this much BS in one sitting.Zvonko (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You have serious issues with the WP:BLP policy if you think that anyone is going to interpret my ancient insistence on the use of the name X Y for a person whom all existing sources call X Y, or else insistence on a smattering of sources attesting otherwise - as an act of anything other than trivial, essential policy enforcement. The amount of assumption of bad faith you're showing here should lead to a ban for yourself, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Threatening me with a ban is the best you can do, you're getting less and less creative with each post. As explained to you ages ago, by it seems multiple users, the fact that a relative "smattering" of sources refer to Sol Campbell as "Sulzeer", [[Co Adriaanse] as "Jacobus", Cotton Fitzsimmons as "Lowell", Red Auerbach as "Arnold", Toe Blake as "Joseph Hector"... (and literally hundreds of other examples just to limit it to sports) doesn't mean their first names stopped being what they are and are not worthy of inclusion in their respective bios. Only you see a Serb conspiracy in including Dado Prso's real name in his bio.Zvonko (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not "a Serb conspiracy", it's merely anonymous editors who appear to be interested in promoting an unverified Serbian name claim over the preponderance of verifiable evidence - a glaring violation of WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NOTHERE... Besides, you didn't appear to even check that Sol Campbell's article now actually has a proper inline citation that verifies that full name to what appears to be a book source. If someone simply did that in the case of Pršo's full name, there would be no problem. Instead you appear to prefer to stand on the sidelines for eight years and then start lobbing insults at me. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

But they offered you a bunch of references that you all readily dismissed so how's it an 'unverified claim'? And how did AFP become a 'Serbian unverified name claim'!?..... And yeah sorry for not becoming aware of the Dado Pršo issue earlier so that I could have been keeping a vigil for 8 years beside the Dado Pršo article protecting it against angry Croats who kept removing the references. You know how it is, I was too busy plotting your demise for 8 years and I didn't want to blow my cover too soon.Zvonko (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Er, no, IIRC they offered a link to a single AFP story that mentions this name. When I asked why wasn't this name mentioned in all the other stories, something that would at least attempt to explain this discrepancy, there was no actual answer.--Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You didn't remember correctly, there was more than a single AFP story, but alright.Zvonko (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

As for 8 years - well, you brought this up. How did you become aware of it now? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What a tonally clumsy question. What's really troubling you? Are you suspecting foul play or conspiracy of some sort?

Actually, now that I think about it, I did contact the Serbian state security like I often do for my Wiki editing, especially when Croats, as is the case here, are involved. So, my old buddy at the Serb state security provided me with useful info about your past Wiki editing transgressions. I believe his exact words as he was handing me the envelope in a dark Belgrade underground parking garage were: "Oh yeah, that Croat falsely accused you of being disruptive? That's total WP:HAR! Here's what you hit him with".

Anyway, lest you think the above actually took place (after all you demonstrated yourself here to be bereft of any ability of processing figurative speech), Prso got mentioned during the World Cup TV coverage I watched, something about almost quitting pro football in his mid 20s when only low division clubs wanted him before giving himself one last chance to get something out of his football and eventually making the World Cup squad, signing with Rangers, and so on, so I wikied him and started reading the talk discussion.Zvonko (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what's at play here, and it's not really important, because I ultimately don't see any legitimate reason for these kinds of attacks regardless of how they originated. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, great deflection. You merely asserted that you were misinterpreted in that debate, and that I attacked you in this debate, without providing any actual plausible explanation for anything. Instead, you turned to smearing me with a blatantly flawed argument. And then you have the gall to talk about empty rhetoric. This is true sophistry. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Had you actually bothered to read and look into the context of what i wrote there instead of quick-skimming through swathes of text looking for any ammunition that you can remotely cobble together for the purposes of making me into a "disruptive editor cut from the same cloth as Antidiskriminator" all in a pretty pathetic attempt of disqualifying my opinion here only because it doesn't happen to fit into your current needs, you would've perhaps known what I argued for there. PRODUCER (well known all over Wikipedia for being a lovely, open-minded, balanced, and all around brilliant guy who is in a well-deserved retirement) wanted the article describing what happened to the Sarajevo Serbs and their property in the immediate hours and days post-Ferdinand-assasination on June 28 and 29, 1914 to be named "Anti-Serb demonstrations in Austria-Hungary", a gross misrepresentation in my opinion both spatially and in terms of the nature of what took place. He went about his goal by framing the discussion from the start as a puerile Google Books hits measuring contest garnered with very creative interpretations of the hits while avoiding at all costs the discussion of the gist of the matter of what it is that took place in Sarajevo in those days and coming up with a suitable name for it based on Wikipedia:Name. Several editors, including you followed him along this path while I, among other things, attempted to demonstrate to you all (using extremely clear and simple 4th grade reading level statements of what it is I'm trying to communicate) what an exercise in stupidity this is by offering the sizable number of hit returns for some truly ridiculous terms that definitely do not accurately describe the events yet get some traction. Your concoctions of sinister intent, disruption, or whatever other accusation you're throwing my way make about as much sense as your conduct and reasoning on Talk:Dado Pršo and Dado Pršo, both recent and back in 2006.Zvonko (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we keep this on topic? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The consensus decision of that move discussion (by User:BDD) says clearly that the term "demonstrations" is better and more common in sources than "pogrom" (and then also that "riots" is the best solution). It also says while there wasn't consensus for using the wider geographic scope, there wasn't prejudice to doing so if more content is added. So the two things that the User:PRODUCER proposed to change - he wasn't actually wrong to do so. There was certainly no consensus that it was "puerile", "stupid", or "ridiculous". His initial method wasn't completely precise, because it didn't use quotes in search queries to connect words into phrases, but neither was yours. All you achieved with that flawed argument was to make the discussion that much longer and less focused on building consensus. And with this explanation, it's actually clear that you weren't into it with the necessary assumption of good faith, rather it was just a case of battleground attitude. It's not sinister, but it's definitely disruptive. That you continue to think so badly of your fellow editors is usually a sign that you're not going to become less disruptive when dealing with them in the future. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, Joy, the Disingenuous Univ all-star power forward I talked about earlier is hitting top form again. You accuse me of being disruptive, having battleground attitude, and assuming bad faith for using inductive reasoning and figurative speech!? You're just lobbing baseless accusations my way hoping for, at this point, only you know what. I mean if you were 7 I guess I could take this at face value, but seeing that your probably not 7 I don't know what to say. Either you're very unintelligent or just plain disingenuous, and you're not very unintelligent so.... Also, where did you dream up that "User:BDD says clearly that the term demonstrations is better and more common in sources than pogrom"? He neither says nor implies any comparative quality statements. What he said was "It's certainly correct that pogrom can describe events against ethnic groups besides Jews, however, and that some sources referred to these events as a pogrom. For that reason, there's no need to scrub the word out from the article entirely, though I will naturally be removing some instances of it in connection with the rename." and "There was a preference for riots over demonstrations as a replacement term. As a neutral, I think this is essentially correct. Demonstration conjures up images of people marching with placards, not attacking people and vandalizing property based on ethnic divisions. The term is used in sources, however." Zvonko (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

He would never have even considered the idea of scrubbing the word out from the article entirely had he not thought that it was more appropriate. He was being fair to the minority argument; OTOH you're just wikilawyering now, and continuing to dig a hole for yourself with more of this condescending tripe. We're definitely not exchanging any new information here, so this discussion really needs to end here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Antidiskriminator's comment here is the same old misrepresentation. No, Joy isn't the only person to have issues with Antidiskriminator's editing; many editors in the Balkans have. (All of whom are "involved", by Antidiskriminator's definition). It's not just over one article either, but swathes of articles; misrepresenting sources, cherrypicking, and systematically reverting other peoples' work - regardless of how well it's sourced - if it doesn't fit a radical Serb nationalist POV. Strangely, Antidiskriminator's "vacation" means that he can't explain those problems here, but he still has free time to edit-war over POV-forks like this (He originally wrote it as "Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo", and still talks at length about pogroms, even though it wasn't a pogrom). Some articles have included hoaxes like Serbia's NUTS regions for years - it doesn't matter whether or not these are actual NUTS regions (they aren't); as long as Antidiskriminator is editing, it stays in wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Truth be told, reverting those anonymous blankings, which are probably work of some long-time abuser evading a block, was the correct immediate course of action on the face of it. This is why this is not a simple complaint. Perhaps you can invest some time to explain why that "Demonisation of the Serbs" draft is a bad idea - since on the face of it, it looks like a well-referenced article in the making... it's not necessarily immediately obvious in what way it is tendentious. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: given you proposed, implemented and subsequently lifted the 2012 ARBMAC topic ban on Antidiskriminator, and he has demonstrably engaged in "further tendentious editing on the topic of the Chetniks", I would like your views on the above proposal. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Given what I've just read I'm not sure why we aren't talking about an indef block and community ban. This is exactly the kind of subtle POV pushing that Wikipedia needs less (or none) of. --NellieBly (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks from User:QuackGuru

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 took a look at AN/I logs and see that this user has been topic banned multiple times for things like this. I made my initial contribution [121] to Acupuncture. QG was quick to remove the edits in a very calculated and tenuous manner. I reworked the submission with a better ref and resubmitted. It was removed by another user. After that I did try to reinsert the material but for some reason got an undeserved edit warring warning from User:2over2[122]

Quack started harassing me almost immediately. He claimed that I reposted poor sources against consensus and then went on and on about the sources. He then started hounding me on my talk page which lead first request for Quack to stop hounding me about sources on my talk page. He did not comply with this.

Quack next started destructively editing Myofascial meridians and continuing to spew his toxic Fringe Bias. For the apparent reason of revenge, he gutted an article I was working on. Things have deteriorated from there.

I don't like conflict. I have spent the last few months working on Islamic State (militant group) and related articles and I haven't had a single bad experience. There's certain bad actors that serve no constructive purpose. They thrive on attention and only cause trouble.

I would like to propose an immediate block and have this put forth for review for ban. - Technophant (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of edit warring, the harassment link doesn't look like a personal attack to me. (Non-administrator comment) Dustin (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at my talk page under "Friendly Warning". I asked him politely and firmly to stop bringing source issues to my talk page earlier. - Technophant (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. So User:Technophant has added a bunch of primary sources here [123] among others and than reports QG when he brings it politely to his attention? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

And looking further. In this edit they added content that does not appear to be supported by the ref in question [124]. Unless they come up with some good justification I am thinking a topic ban of User:Technophant from alternative medicine may be in order. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Take a look that a ref Jmh649. It has a Title, date, author, and partial url. The partial url is a minor copy/paste error due to a flakey trackpad. I went and found the proper url and [125] the problem. - Technophant (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

3RR NB filing WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Technophant_reported_by_User:MrBill3_.28Result:_.29 - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the best description of what has been going on is WP:Wikihounding. - Technophant (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you're alone in thinking that, though. I'm afraid "going on and on about the sources" is an integral part of what we do at Wikipedia. It's a good thing, not a bad thing, and it's good that there are users who have the patience for it. Bishonen | talk 16:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

This editor looks an awful lot like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek. Exact same behavior, paranoia, assumptions of bad faith, attacking other editors, topics, etc.. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Brangifer, you know paranoia, ABF and attacking other editors are common as grass in this place, don't you? That leaves only the topics, which is hardly enough for a duck block. That's not saying you're wrong, but I'm not sure the similarities are significant enough to persuade a checkuser to look. A CU has made a check at the Klocek SPI, but it's not closed yet, so maybe you'd like to add this account and ask for another check? Bishonen | talk 17:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

• Technophant, it's not appropriate to take your isues with Acupuncture to multiple boards simultaneously. Your complaint at WP:NPOVN is technically about "a cabal of users hell-bent in making sure acupuncture is completely discredited" [126] while this report here is about QuackGuru, but the meat of them is exactly the same: your dissatisfaction with the users opposing your edits at Acupuncture. Please review Wikipedia: Asking the other parent: It doesn't help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. I'm not sure where this comment goes best, but, since you haven't linked to your other complaint at either of the noticeboards, I suppose I'd better put it on both. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 19 July 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.

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, TheAirplaneGuy and John

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 BS that come's from this guys keyboard 'What the fuck do you think you are playing at? Stand back and let me fix the article, I don't have time to do it all multiple times. And never accuse me of being a vandal. This was agreed in talk.' TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Where did you notify John (talk · contribs) about this ANI discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Yes he notified at WP:ANEW [127]. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

He didn't say where he reported him. And then there's this condescending post:[128] TheAirplaneGuy has been here for 4 years, and John has been here for 8. Maybe there's a long-standing feud between these two? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I can assure you that this is the first time we have crossed paths... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware that your signature is still pointing to your previous ID? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Also, the instructions at the top of this page are pretty explicit: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I was trying to drop a little hint to the OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Par for the course I'm afraid. The following threats of unilateral blocking without benefit of ANI and redacting of editors comments were make in regard to an issue in which John is not an uninvolved admin. [129], [130] and [131]. If it looks like bullying... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the typical behaviour for an admin, but I was threatened with a block by John when I requested him not to remove sources, giving reason for the illogicality of his action. He chose not to discuss it but issued a threat to block instead - the exchange here Hzh (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@TheAirplaneGuy: do you have diffs or links for the alleged bullshit? Protonk (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked TheAirplaneGuy for a day for 3RR vio (not just against John) after coming across this on the article. If an admin wishes to unblock TheAirplaneGuy so they can participate here with the condition that they avoid the article for a day I've got no issue with that (if they ask I'll do it myself). As I said at WP:ANEW I've notified both of the discretionary sanctions in this area with no prejudice to action being taken as a result of this thread. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I notified John of this discussion. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 18:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Should not the article be added to the list of articles under the discretionary sanctions?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Solarra for the notification and thanks Callanecc for the block. I don't have a lot to add. It was discussed and agreed at the article talk that the "reactions" section was over-stuffed with anodyne quotes. The article was tagged to reflect this. I started to work on summarising the important quotes this morning and was bloody annoyed to be repeatedly reverted by TheAirplaneGuy, in one case with an edit summary accusing me of vandalism. I said in my own talk how annoyed I was, then checked their contribs and saw they were blind-reverting most edits to the article, and were at something like 13RR for the day. Reported to AN3 and went about my business. --John (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• Note that heavy edit warring is currently going on in the article, which involves at least four users (+/- 469 bytes reverts)--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not that I'm volunteering, but maybe it's time for full protection and a few admin to babysit the talk page for stuff to add? The problem now is that an edit can get to 13RR (or even 6RR in the event that was hyperbole) and it go unnoticed because of all the other edits to that same page. 72 hours should be sufficient. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  The problem is that the information for the article is changing hourly, and in 72h the article will be hopelessly outdated. And asking for protected edit request will likely be unmanageable. I edited the article though and I am not in a position to protect it or to block anybody for edit warring in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  I've worked a number of these exact types of articles before with full protection. The only way you can do it is have good editors on the talk page rapidly building consensus and a couple of admins making changes to the article based on each consensus and nothing else. It forced people to use the talk page for each point, but it does require an admin or two always babysitting, around the clock. In some circumstances, it is the best way to deal with the problem, where POV and rapid edits are making it impossible to manage warring otherwise. If you block a half dozen people, you may end up making the POV even worse. I'm not saying this is the right answer here and will defer to your judgement, just that sometimes, hardnosed but monitored protection works, even if only for a few hours. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  If there are admins available to monitor the page, may be one can indeed protect it for 24h or so.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • If there is good cause to think it will work, as Dennis indicates, do it. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

    No way. I was taken yesterday to ANI for promising to block a single-purpose account for repeatedly calling the page protection (of the same page) "vandalism". If I protect it now, I will possibly be taken to Arbcom.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone edit warring needs to be blocked. There is no sense in effectively locking down an article about a major current event due to a few people. -- John Reaves 22:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The fundamental dichotomy is between those who believe, as I do, that WP is intended to be an encyclopedia, and those who believe that it's a 24-hour rolling news site. Block the latter. Eric Corbett 22:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support the position of Mr Corbett in this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 22:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It's worse than people wanting to make Wikipedia a 24 hour news cycle. Some editors, like some of the world's political "leaders", are using this incident as an opportunity to say "the Russians are evil and must be punished" or "No, the Ukranians did it", long before we can be certain of either, or not. It's a classic POV platform, being misused in the worst possible way. Unless such editors are QUICKLY sanctioned EVERY time, some protection seems to me to be the only way at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• You're missing the point John Reaves, when the article is this busy, you might have to read through several pages to see the 5th or 6th revert in a day. Blocking everyone is problematic because you end up only blocking some of the people, leading to uneven enforcement. Sometimes, locking it down so no one can edit is exactly the right call, at least for a while, to bring sanity as well as force the editors to seek consensus on the talk page. We aren't cops, we are editors with extra tools, here to build an encyclopedia. Whatever stops disruption and improves the encyclopedia is the best move, and sometimes that is protection for a few hours, even if that pisses a few people off. Some of these people are just getting too excited but they mean well and are simply human. Blocking multiple people should not be the first tool you pull out of the admin kit. And Eric, that is exactly why protection isn't the end of the world when used properly for limited periods of time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Good points Eric and Dennis. I hadn't looked at it that way. I suppose we have talk pages for a reason! -- John Reaves 22:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Article fully protected based on the discussion above. I've made it indefinite, since I don't know how long we normally do for a super-high-profile article like this. 24 hours? 48 hours? A week? Please reduce protection immediately if you're familiar with our normal practice. Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• I would strongly oppose full protection of this page. This is an extremely important and quickly developing event. Even now, the page is in a relatively poor condition. Make 1RR or 2RR restriction for the page if you wish. This can be done because tt falls under EE discretionary sanctions. My impression: recent work with this page was relatively peaceful. Warn or block edit-warriors if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• I also oppose full protection, this is an ongoing crisis full protection will make the article dated over time per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• Information for this article is changing hourly, and within 12 hours, the article will be hopelessly outdated. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, maybe now some people will start to realize just how ill-suited crowd-sourced editing is for current/breaking events. Imagine in the olden days of actual journalism and beat writers, if 50 people had to share one keyboard to write 1 story. Tarc (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• I oppose full protection. A per-case PC2 may be used instead. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 00:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not a thing with TheAirplaneGuy or other editors, but an actual event which needs many updates, see "Current Disaster" template on top of the article. So: Normalgirl (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Cant the two just be topic banned for a week or so? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• With this notice at the top of the talk page - The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. - You would think that admins would have opted for discretionary sanctions against the offending editors, rather than punishing sanctioning all editor's.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Nobody is being punished. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Strike punishment, is sanction better?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Voting: Full protection of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

• Oppose This article needs to be updated quickly, it will be outdated in a few hours. And: it works, look at the page views counter, this article is the strength and core of the shrinking Wikipedia. Admins please accept not to having full control. Normalgirl (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think voting is appropriate here. See WP:NOTAVOTE. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 00:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Now, if you look at the other cases here, there are often votings at the end of the discussion. Even you actually "voted" here. And: its not the time to discuss several days carefully. Normalgirl (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • We admins don't have "control". No admin has put in anything they thought was a good idea, only what the community clearly said passes consensus. And you are correct, this isn't about voting, it is about preventing problems by slowing the editing down to what is clearly passing consensus. Wikipedia isn't CNN, our job isn't to be the most up to date, just timely but more important, accurate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Only admin !votes would be relevant anyhow. I see NG's point about the normal functioning of WP, but IMO it's simply the case that countless users will be coming here seeking to question, undermine, or minimize mainstream reporting and opinion on this event, and as I understand it that's not what WP is for. I started off wanting to say weak oppose (i.e. restore semi-protection, with reservations). But the meta-public debate about perspective and biases that is likely to occur here is, I think, something that WP usually takes pains to avoid. That is supposed to play out in op-eds, letters to editors, comments on news websites, etc. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to help keeping this special article up to date. Normalgirl (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

To clear up a few things: when there is a poll, admin don't get the exclusive right to !vote. Votes aren't counted like 10-4, etc. You need to read WP:CONSENSUS. It is more complicated than that, and sometimes discussion are decided against the numeric vote because the minority presented better policy based rationales. Admin are just editors like you, but we are editors that the community has vetted and determined we can be trusted to enact the will of the community using those tools (because it wouldn't be practical to give everyone the tools). We aren't super users. Admin generally are very experienced editors, however. And Normalgirl, we try to never use protection on articles except when we have to. I would expect protection to be lifted soon. It is ironic that so few people are bothering to use the talk page, which is odd. You are new and not familiar with our policies, which is fine (welcome, by the way, I hope you stick around!). The problem is when 100 new editors who don't know the rules are editing, it becomes impossible to enforce the policies because 100 people are reverting back and forth and arguing. We don't like protecting, but sometimes it is what we must do for a short while. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:19, 20 July 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.

Bibliography of Aeolian Research

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

---

This has been tagged as an A7 along with the seven subpages thus far created. Copyright violation is also asserted on the subpages. This sentence from the main page is disturbing: "In 2014, a copy of the BAR was reformatted and moved from the USDA-ARS webserver in Lubbock, Texas, to Wikipedia."

I have no idea what to do with these pages. Any thoughts?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Correcting myself: the subpages have been tagged only with G12.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I tagged the pages. I tagged the main page as A7 because it is about an online bibliography that does not assert its importance. I tagged the subpages as G12 because they appear to simply be the bibliography that's been cut and pasted. Just wanted to explain my logic in case it wasn't clear. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't blaming you for anything, btw, I just felt I had to notify you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Per the post at Talk:Bibliography of Aeolian Research which is contesting the deletion, it appears they are wanting to use Wikipedia to assist their users in contributing to their bibliographic data. I suspect that wikia.org might be better suited to achieve their intended goals; anyone else have a suggestion which can be provided for them to use? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I see three issues here. First, by my reading of Adelman v. Christy and Feist v. Rural, we can't accept a cut 'n' paste bibliography unless the original work is licensed to allow that. Second, there's the notability issue to sort out, and third, it's not clear to me what would prevent the article from becoming identical to a google scholar search on "Aeolian". If AfD find the topic to be notable, then I think the copyright and scope issues can be hashed out. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I see no reason whatsoever why we should serve as--what? a conduit? a repository? Maybe Wikia, I don't know. But the subpages need to go, stante pede, and I also see no grounds to think that the main topic meets the GNG. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies, I've contested the deletions of the first few subpages. Based on USDA copyright policy, I believe that information was released into the public domain. If you find the the licensing information plausible, would you consider restoring the remainder of the pages? If deletion review is a the more appropriate forum, I'm happy to move the conversation there. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• It's not clear to me that this those pages are in the public domain. But if they are I will propose deletion per WP:LISTCRUFT. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me from the discussion at Talk:Bibliography of Aeolian Research that the persons responsible for the existing bibliography are under a fundamental misapprehension - that they could 'host' it here, and retain editorial control. That is plainly not possible under Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

They're aware that they won't have editorial control. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is freely licensed, would Wikisource be a better fit? --NE2 04:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on my research and the conversation on the talk page, I think this has potential to be a terrific bibliography article. We've got a peer-reviewed paper on the bibliography that (to my mind) establishes notability, the material for the article is in the public domain, and the editors seem to have a good grasp on how to write the article to put tight bounds on material that will be included. I would rather the editors have started this in a userspace sandbox, but that's water under the bridge. The entries need to be wikified and formatted so we're picking up DOI links, etc. An author and subject index would be particularly helpful (and once those indexes exist the material should probably be arranged chronologically). So yeah, there might be a couple person-years worth of work here. At the end of that process, though, I think we have a slam-dunk featured list. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Except that that peer reviewed paper is authored by the database authors, and -despite its review- is thus not an independent source regarding notability. It may be a great resource, and the authors may be able to help wikipedia achieve its goals with their knowledge, but those aren't our notability criteria, nor does it make a selection criterion for which items get on which lists.... L.tak (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@L.tak: I take your point. However, per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Notability_of_bibliography_articles: For a bibliography on a topic to be notable, the members of that bibliography should be discussed as a group in reliable sources. This discussion may take the form of a published standalone bibliography on the topic, a bibliography in a published reliable source on the topic or recommendations for further reading on the topic published in a reliable source on the topic. The fact that multiple published bibliographies exist in this domain is sufficient for the notability of an article along the lines of Bibliography of Aeolian Publications, which could then be populated from the public-domain Bibliography of Aeolian Research. That article could have, as part of its introductory material, a description of the several published bibliographies that it draws upon. Such an article doesn't look all that different from the article we have now, and we avoid having to figure out how many one- and two-paragraph discussions in secondary sources are required to establish the notability of a particular bibliography. Could we move this conversation to the article talk page? I don't see any particular need for admin intervention here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This discussion could indeed be easily moved to a talk page... I'll answer here one more time to keep things together. If you read the article Bibliography of Aeolian Research, than it is about the Bibliography of over 43000 (!) items created by Warren et al. A general bibliography article Bibliography of aeolian research could be created maybe, but it would benefit from the present article only with regards to the second paragraph. Furthermore, a wikipedia bibliography article that in fact copies a list from a different source, instead of writing it ourselves, with our own discussion on relevant (meta)sources would be just "hosting" a different site. In this case, the problem seems also to be size: a meaningful bibliography from a encyclopaedic standpoint will IMO never encompass so many journal papers (rather than books etc) and would thus never include 43000 items... L.tak (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. I think this can be closed now. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 12:42, 20 July 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.

Shuja'iyya massacre

Shuja'iyya massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could some of the admins sort the mess that going on this article

1.Article that created to push one sided WP:POV which probably also violation of WP:ARBPIA

2.Misplaced speedy deletion tag that probably shouldn't be placed as its not a vandalism of course and removal of it not by admin(while edit waring)

3.Multiple people broke 1RR and probably 3RR

4.Several WP:DUCKs that try to turn it one sided POV but to the other side --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX.

• Its a mess, I previously blocked one editor for blatant blanking, and have now removed the G3 tag, as its clearly not vandalism. That said, the remaining editors on the article are failing to maintain a neutral POV, (The editor I blocked was trying to flip the POV the other way, but being much more disruptive than the other side) the article really needs some neutral editors to help out, and possibly a trip to WP:AFD. Monty₈₄₅ 16:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism includes creating an article with "obvious misinformation" which this article has had from the start. The creator of the article was recently blocked by Admins for edits related to the subject of this article and he/she also states explicitly on his/her page information that shows that he/she has a WP:COI with this article. The sources quoted were far from WP:RS and the article appears to be propaganda about news, not an encyclopedia piece. I explained in more detail on the talk page why it should be speedy deleted. There were also many people going back and forth with propaganda type edits but none of them addressed the core issues. Even the title is propaganda and undermines neutrality and facts. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest comment

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 added this comment [132] which included an image of Upton Sinclair whom I quoted, and a sentence, "Friends don't let friends edit with a COI." I then went on to say why that's so.

The image and that one sentence were removed [133] with the summary that "Rm image per WP:POLEMIC". That didn't make much sense to me for a number of reasons, not least because WP:POLEMIC is from the User pages guideline, and says nothing about Wikipedia talk pages. So with the summary giving that explanation I added the sentence back with the image hidden as per the directions at WP:TPO: [134]. The hidden image and sentence were removed again with a different summary [135].

My request is just that I would like my comment returned to the state I left it at, if possible, please. I do not think my comment should be edited by someone else per WP:TPO. I was not able to reach an agreement on the user talk page wherein is mentioned an Ad Council and U.S. Department of Transportation ad campaign.

There was no comparison with drunk driving. I do not think I've seen any major American ad campaign, let alone the one mentioned. The phrase is common in academic papers: e.g. "Friends don't let friends eat cookies" [136], "Friends Don't Let Friends Vote For Free Trade" [137], "Friends Don't Let Friends Listen to Corporate Rock" [138]; and on Wikipedia (and apparently Alaskan bumper stickers too): e.g. "friends don't let friends become vegetarians" [139], "Friends don't let friends eat farmed fish" [140], "friends don't let friends date vampires" [141]. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Friends don't let friends drive drunk is an ad campaign by the ad council starting in 1983 and has persisted for over 30 years. It is well known and attempt to coorelate living COI editing to drunken drivers who are constantly in the news for manslaughter is obscene. When pointed out to Atethnekos what that phrase means, he choose to persist instead of back off which shows me that he intended that meaning all along. He can make up some other clever insult that doesn't involve killing children and families and use the image for that. Googling "Friends dont let friends" immediately brings up the drunken driving ad council website - not cookies or whatever other red herring Atethnekos wants to use to detract from the real meaning of the phrase. It also adds nothing to the discussion at all.--v/r - TP 06:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

All of those other things are plays on "Friends don't let friends drive drunk." I've seen countless such variants. I would guess that Atethnekos is too young to have known about the inspiration for all those variants. This is something Americans often do. Like the many plays on the "Got milk?" ads. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So use of a thirty-year-old phrasal construction -- imitated, parodied, and reused countless times of the last three decades -- automatically implies that the user meant the thirty-year-distant original reference? Really? I don't know about "too young", but there's someone in this conversation in need of growing up -- and it's not User:Atethnekos. --Calton | Talk 08:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

30 year old campaign and still running. Please explain to me what prevents Atethnekos from coming up with some other non-drunken-child-killing insult, which violates WP:NPA anyway, to use against COI editors and why this particular insult is needed.--v/r - TP 11:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't always comment at ANI, but when I do, I usually agree with Tom and Bugs. "Friends don't let friends" is a meme, like the stupid sentence I started this comment with, but it is a meme based on and comparing to, drunk driving. The seriousness of the offense of drunk driving is the only reason the meme exists, to compare some action with drunk driving, although almost always in a humorous way. Not all humor is appropriate, however. COI is a serious concern here, but I tend to think that comparing it to drunk driving is likely to be seen as confrontational rather than informative or humorous. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oh come on, "friends don't let friends edit Wikipedia drunk" or any such version of the meme is not comparative to the seriousness of drunk-driving, is not offensive, should not be offensive, is not confrontational (depending on how it's used), and a similar version of been used on ANI itself numerous times before. Geez, friends shouldn't let frends edit Wikipedia while being non-humourous or extremely overly-sensitive the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe it is a cultural thing, it seems to be to Americans who were pounded with the commercials for decades. I don't think it is a huge deal, but it is unnecessarily confrontational in a general talk page discussion. Personal talk page, meh, I wouldn't care. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I googled "friends don't let friends", and there are countless examples and images, some of them serious ("text and drive"), most of them parodies - one of the funnier ones was "divide by zero". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 21 July 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.

Want to report User: Drmargi

Kitchen Nightmares (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to report User: Drmargi for blatantly harassing new editors making comments in the Talk:Kitchen Nightmares page, and deleting their comments without so much as shred of proof. Constructive posts and suggestions have been deleted with the new editors being called names and made scapegoats for past problems with the page. This editor also has a pattern of visiting other editor's pages to push his or her agenda on this page.58.168.101.160 (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This IP has previously posted multiple times to Talk:Kitchen Nightmares using multiple IPs, from the 58.168.x and 120.14x pools, both of which are allocated to Telstra BigPond, an Australian ISP. He is thought to be a sock of Roman888, a banned editor. Drmargi warned me recently on my talk page that he was back.[142] --AussieLegend (✉) 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me introduce Roman888, a community banned user and serial IP sockpuppet. Every so often, he turns up, starts a fuss at the Kitchen Nightmares articles, is called on his nonsense and disappears. Pay him no mind; he'll get bored soon. --Drmargi (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me state for the record and on behalf of all new editors that have been unfairly blamed for Roman888's past transgressions, that this unfair blatant harassment is not productive and DrMargi has been seen deleting new editor's posts using the pretext that they are a sockpuppet or disruptive editor. Drmargi is also seen canvassing other people's talk pages and accusing new editors of being this Roman sockpuppet. It is in the interest of other new editors that Drmargi is to be reprimanded for his or her abusive behaviour to other new editors.58.168.101.160 (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The above statement is technically known as a "non-denial denial". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This is classic Roman888. Notice he's made no effort to actually edit the article. He never does, just stir the shit on the talk page. The from there, he rapidly accelerates the drama. He has a sizable collection of socks and suspected socks in this IP pool, and should be accorded as little attention as possible. --Drmargi (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Out of interest 58.168.101.160 is this in the same manner that youve been canvassing editors talkpages to ask them to look into Drmargi's behaviour. Amortias (T)(C) 17:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Amortias, this is what he does every time he turns up. He leaves some post or another moaning about Kitchen Nightmares (never making an effort to actually edit the article), is called out as Roman888 (always transparent, because of the technical data AussieLegend notes above, always geolocating in and around Sydney) and then the drama begins as the ducks quack in legion. As I noted at the SPI filing, this thread is a new flourish but right in character, as is the noted tendency to redirect attention away from evidence against him by drawing attention to another user, usually me. This thread is a waste of time, editor effort and bandwidth. --Drmargi (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if I am complaining on other editor's talk pages, it doesn't distract from the manner this person has been making baseless accusations against new editors. Plus this Drmargi has the guile to post on people's pages his or her suspicions of that editor being a sockpuppet. Look as his or her latest posting on Talk:Kitchen_Nightmares. So where is the evidence and fairness in all of this?58.168.101.160 (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, and who are you to make that assumption. Do you pronounced that all people are guilty, especially new editors? -- 58.168.101.160 (talk · contribs) 17:39, 20 July 2014

Each time you posted here 58 there was a big yellow box stating that you MUST inform DM about this thread. You have managed to ignore it so I have informed DM. The fact of the matter is that a) you have provided no evidence to back up your accusations and b) this does not belong here and it should be closed ASAP. If you have a problem you should file a WP:RFCU. MarnetteD|Talk 17:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't need to inform him or her about this noticeboard, seeing this editor will find a way to this noticeboard. Its this person's suspicious mind that leads him or her to make baseless accusations about new editors in other people's talk pages and noticeboards.58.168.101.160 (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you do need to inform him or her about this noticeboard. If you're going to participate as a constructive, collaborative editor, that means following guidelines—including the one that says to notify any editor reported here about the report. —C.Fred (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

All right if you say that is so, then I admit I was wrong there. There is no ulterior motive in not informing Drmargi about this noticeboard thread as suggested by the other editor. All I want is that Drmargi is censured for his or her actions.58.168.101.160 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I didn't say you were guilty of anything, I only said your comment waa a non-denial denial. But if you've got a guilty conscience, well... And it is kind of odd that Roman's IP socks seem to emanate from Sydney. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

So are you going to accuse all new editors with Sydney IP addresses of being sockpuppets. How silly is that assumption and this is why that Drmargi has that other editor User:AussieLegend believing the same baseless accusations.58.168.101.160 (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've had to deal with you before.[143] You change IPs to suit your needs. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please also notice that Drmargi will always canvass User:AussieLegend's talk page and who will be swayed by his or her baseless accusations.58.168.101.160 (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

SPI filed at [144]. Hopefully we can put this to rest soon, and close as MarnetteD suggests. --Drmargi (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you see what I am getting at? Don't like someone's post, put a sockpuppet investigation and abusing the the SPI process at the same time.58.168.101.160 (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

SPIs can prove people innocent, too; if you're not Roman888, you really have nothing to worry about. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No: SPIs don't address IP addresses in any technical sense. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Although he's blocked now, I want to make one last point, just for the record: notice Roman never explicitly denies who he is, but hedges around it. As soon as he pops up, I immediately begin referring to him as Roman on the KN talk page, and he never denies it. He just gets into this sort of snit, and plays his games. --Drmargi (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• IP blocked for a little while. After comparing with some of Roman's earlier whines on the talk page, it seems pretty clear to me (from tone and poor grammar) that this is the same editor. If they return to that talk page, we can always semi-protect it. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! His grammar is a dead give-away. He's Malaysian, so English isn't his first language, and it shows at times. He didn't start socking until he relocated to OZ. There's a copyvio case against him somewhere, and Moodriddengirl and her team spent hours cleaning up after him on Malaysia related articles, in addition to the KN/RKN messes. Unfortunately, he'll probably hop to a new IP sock shortly. His tenure at the latest one is about as long as he lasts before he hops again. --Drmargi (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Although 58.168.101.160 is blocked, the editor is likely to return under another IP, as he did after his last edits using 58.168.51.144 were reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Having dragged this here, the sockmaster has cleverly raised awareness of his behavior, so he'll be on a lot more users' radar now. And with the sockmaster having been banned and not merely indef'd, any edits he makes are subject to removal on-sight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou, this is better. Shabratha (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Young earth creationist pov-pusher repeatedly violating copyright

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.

---

Hwahl90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding material stolen from Genesis Park, Creation.com, and probably other sites. He has been warned by Dougweller, and me. Dougweller and I have both explained (beyond the template) that we simply do not accept material directly copied from other sites, even if he got "permission." And yet he keeps adding copyvio material.

Trying to explain WP:NPOV to him, I get the impression that he's WP:NOTHERE to summarize mainstream publications, but promote fringe creationist beliefs. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for copyright violations and cleaned up all his edits. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Reporting user Middayexpress

I would like to report the user Middayexpress for always updating false info on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shukran_Hussein_Gure and always removing the correct updates that others add onto the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja'afar Aden (talk • contribs) 14:44, July 20, 2014‎ (UTC)

I've notified him. Do you have any relationship with Shukran Hussein Gure ‎and can you explain why you think File:Shukran Hussein.png is copyright free? It's identical to File:Shukran.png which was deleted earlier this week by User:Mike V. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Shukran is a close friend of mine and my representative in the kenyan parliament.The information provided by the user Middayexpress is somehow false,inaccurate and very short.As of the picture,the photo is her real photo with no any copyrighted material.For more of the said dispute the following can be use as a resolution center for facts http://www.shukran4garissa.com/ together with http://www.parliament.go.ke/plone/national-assembly/members-of-the-national-assembly/members/47884553 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja'afar Aden (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I note that Middayexpress called Ja'afar Aden a sock in their edit summaries, without specifying whose sock they are supposed to be, so I would request some clarification. On the other hand, it does appear as if Middayexpress' version of the page contained material that fell short of WP:BLP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to request the user Middayexpress to be restricted to making changes to this page,if he/she does not respond to the allegations against him/her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja'afar Aden (talk • contribs) 15:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The Ja'afar Aden account is a WP:DUCK sock of 2001:848:0:6600:f878:b6d6:3c46:bacf. He has been disrupting the Shukran Hussein Gure page, adding identical original research using both accounts ([145], [146]). He has also twice added a copyrighted image to the page, initially claiming that the File:Shukran.png in question was his own work (the Ja'afar Aden account uploaded it, and the 2001:848:0:6600:f878:b6d6:3c46:bacf shortly afterwards added it to the page). The file was inevitably speedily deleted, so he attempted to re-add the same copyrighted image today as File:Shukran Hussein.png, with the new claim that the subject had given permission to use it on her official website. In reality, the only statement on copyright on the provided website link indicates that the material is © Copyright 2012 - 2014 [147]. This file was thus speedily deleted as well. Middayexpress (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That isn't a sock, per WP:SOCK. That is an IP that finally registered. That IP has never been blocked, so he wasn't avoiding scrutiny, just registering, which is something we normally encourage. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER

He wasn't an ip editor (that's a mobile device number) nor did he just create that account, as his contributions show [148] [149]. He has also now just admitted above to having a conflict of interest vis-a-vis the subject ("Shukran is a close friend of mine and my representative in the kenyan parliament"). Middayexpress (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Without commenting on much of anything else, that's an IPv6 address, which is announced on the contributions page itself. You don't HAVE to edit from a mobile device to have one. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I thought it may have been a Mobile IPv6. Middayexpress (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Which is still an IP address, albeit one which shouldn't change much. Nil Einne (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, an IP address linked to a mobile device. Middayexpress (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I used the said ip because i was not logged in in that case.However after i noticed,i logged in continued to make the changes.It is interesting to note that all the changes i made were correct and made to make sure we maintain the right to information to the audience unlike yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja'afar Aden (talk • contribs) 15:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't make any changes. I simply reverted your original research and successive false copyright claims. Middayexpress (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no any false copyright claims,it was just a misunderstanding.To revert changes is ok but unless the changes being reverted to are correct and trustworthy.For example there is no need to provide an arabic name of the person and no need to provide her ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja'afar Aden (talk • contribs) 16:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Shukran is from the Ogaden Darod clan, an ethnic Somali clan that traces descent to the Yemeni patriarch Abdirahman bin Isma'il al-Jabarti. Surely you already knew this as her self-described friend. As for her Somali ethnicity in general, it certainly is relevant per WP:CATEGRS ("Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people"). I also fail to see how claiming that the file was your own work when it isn't is a misunderstanding. Middayexpress (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)