Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive852

Modernist

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

User:Modernist seems to be on his/her own personal campaign against the WP:LAYIM, WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:GALLERY over several articles. A while ago I cleaned up too many images in the article 19th century per WP:LAYIM, WP:GALLERY - over-image "stacks" that shoved images into the next section and an indiscriminate shoehorn gallery[1]. User Modenrnist reverted it back with the comment "seems ok"[2]. I reverted it back with explanation per guidelines[3] and left further rational in talk[4]. 8 months later Modernist is back reverting the same cleanup edit without comment[5]. Since there seemed to be no rational given I reverted it back and then User:Coldcreation showed up and reverted it back to Modernists' edit[6]. Modernist and Coldcreation seem to act very closely in votes[7], double team in discussions[8] and reverts[9][10][11]. Modernist and Coldcreation were addressed jointly about some of their edits by Curly Turkey[12]. This pushiness to make Wikipedia more of an image host has shown up in Talk:Claude Monet and Impressionism[13]. At Talk:Impressionism Modernist seemed to refuse to get the point via adding a further image gallery during the discussion[14], would give no other rational other than "The images are needed" or WP:MOREX arguments, and got quite un-civil re:"Lets be crystal clear - I don't and no one else here owes you an explanation of anything. Who are you?", "Yeah, that's your opinion; you clearly have no experience working on articles in the visual arts - you are owed nothing - nothing". It also came off as a campaign to drive away a productive contributor (HappyWaldo). If these editors want Wikipedia to be an image host I wish they would take it up at the relative guideline and policy talk pages instead of warring it over many articles. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• The portrait images of very famous and important 19th century personages are fine to use in that article - The gallery contains a few other very important, famous 19th century portraits. The galleries used in visual arts articles like Impressionism and Claude Monet are crucial to our understanding of the subject of those articles. Paintings need to be seen. This thread reads like a personal attack against me...Modernist (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think all three of the articles mentioned look great...Modernist (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think this looks like a content dispute.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• I agree this is a content dispute. User:Curly Turkey and I had an argument - that was a long time ago - we've collaborated together long after that argument was history, and I supported his work on 2 featured articles...Modernist (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no desire to re-open old wounds, especially because Modernist and and I have managed to work with each other amicably for some time now, but I have to disagree it's only a content dispute. Modernist, if you're going to continue making the kind of comments pointed out above, you can only expect people to feel they need to fight back. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Do you feel that the comments deserve admin intervention? Please...get a thicker skin. No one "deserves" any explanation (just discussion and that does not mean editors have to explain every action) and unless these comments crossed a line, fighting against them is just drama...drama...drama! Don't "fight" back. If you think he/she was being a dick than just ignore them. Fighting back against every perceived insult or incivil comment just drags out the drama. We are here to write an encyclopedia not right great wrongs and...we are talking about image galleries....not BLP violations! While I believe Modernist could be nicer...until they cross the line into personal attacks...there really is nothing to do here...and frankly...I would more than understand if your good relations with Modernist were now ruined. But that is up to them. But you sure jumped on this fast enough.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Mark Miller: whose comment was this in response to? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Look, we all work very hard here as volunteers without much appreciation - CT, me, and many many others who create this encyclopedia and its contents. I do my best; and I'm proud of the contributions made here by so many editors...Modernist (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No we don't always get much appreciation. In fact, many times we get the very opposite. Do I agree with Modernist on everything? Heck no, but I also see that editors are trying to ask for intervention for not being very nice.... but that is a far cry from incivility that requires intervention. I really suggest this be referred to the DRN board. I can't take the case because I have had interactions with Modernist on Neoclassicism as Amadscientist, but this seems very much like a simple content dispute.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Images can be properly used, improperly used, or omitted. Modernist happens to have a good sense concerning the use of images in articles. Bus stop (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • ANI is not a place to discuss the appropriateness or not of images—that belongs on the talk page. What's being reported is the personal interactions. I get the feeling things have calmed down enough that the discussion can continue on the talk page now. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason to bring this here is behavior. If an editor like Modernist shows contempt for other editors with comments like the ones above, or gives "flippant" edit summaries such as "seems ok" or "unrelated to your IDON'TLIKEIT - looks fine", or no edit summary at all then its going to come here. I have to really disagree with Mark Miller's above "No one "deserves" any explanation", being asked several time for a rational for an edit(s) and saying "I don't and no one else here owes you an explanation of anything" or "you are owed nothing - nothing" is disruptive editing, #4-a at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS to be exact, and, again, brings us back here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you don't agree with that, but really we have no rights here and no one really "deserves" anything. Editors are expected to collaborate and the burden of evidence is on those that add or restore content. But with images we generally have to accept the consensus of the involved editors. Demanding an "explanation" could be as disruptive to editors that have come to consensus as it is to you for getting that response, and to be clear, I don't think it was very nice but many editors make comments that are not very nice. The issue is whether they crossed a line into personal attacks or incivility requiring administrative intervention. While I don't believe there is anything requiring intervention here, others may disagree. But the subjects are image related and text alone cannot get the same information across that a visual aide can. You can discuss brush strokes in a very lengthy text...but an image of a brush stroke will only help get that understanding across better.

My main problem here is your first sentence: "User:Modernist seems to be on his/her own personal campaign against the WP:LAYIM, WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:GALLERY over several articles. " Funny...but on the Claude Monet talk page it appears that there was a recent RFC that resulted in no consensus other than to add more text and captions for context. Yet, here you are now accusing an editor of having their own personal campaign. I have to admit...I do see a personal campaign here...but not from Modernist. Is 6 months long enough to start another RFC? I don't know. Try it and see what happens.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, I have no intention of picking at old wounds, but Mark Miller you might want to look at the edit history of Claude Monet and see how radically the page was restructured as a result of the discussion there. The point FoBM brought up was that Modernist is often not open to discussion—too frequently belligerently so—and, to be honest, if you decline to state or discuss the reasons for your edits, you are forfeiting your right to maintain them when someone else does explain their own edits. Getting there first is not a free pass except in certain areas (choice of spelling, date formatting, and a few others). If an editor intends to maintain an article on The Ecyclopaedia Anyone Can Edit, then they'd better have a rationale to back it up—otherwise it's pure OWNership. Again, I'm not trying to slag Modernist—I'd like to see him discuss the issues respectfully. I vote that FoBM open a fresh discussion at the article's talk page and invite Modernist (and whoever else) to discuss. It's my hope that having brought the interaction issues up here will now have brought some perspective on how the discussion should proceed (nad without admin intervention). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

To add (but I don't see an enforcable ANI issue here, yet), I have had problems trying to convince Modernist about avoiding NFC issues in galleries on articles like these (particularly History of painting), and even considering only free images, how these pages are so bloated in considering WP:SIZE to the end user, and by simply offloading some the galleries to more detailed pages, they'd still serve the purpose they are looking for. But I got the same responses back that others have documents "but they look fine" "art needs to be seen", etc. I haven't pursued it past that point, but I can speak to the hand-waving type dismissals of NFC and image count/gallery issues. --MASEM (t) 05:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should lightly dismiss the argument that "art needs to be seen". Modernist adds a lot of good quality content on visual art. I think Modernist tries to bring out those concerns that arise with greatest frequency in scholarly discussions of visual art. Reference to imagery is very common when discussing visual art and it is preferable that images be close at hand. Linking to images elsewhere may not be a good idea when writing about visual art. It may represent a reasonable tradeoff to make allowances for larger WP:SIZE pages when visual arts is the subject. Images themselves are better seen at larger scales. And the topic of art history is probably better read at a slower pace, allowing time for the page to download. These are largely visual questions that are being addressed. We are often talking about paintings, which have to be seen. Bus stop (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not focusing on the content issue, I'm focusing on the dismissal that Modernist has done in the past with my experiences to simply say "images have to be seen" when challenged about the technical issues with so many issues on one page. That's hand-waving without discussing policy and guidelines that have been set, as well as numerous methods that the same images can be used but distributed on a larger number of subpages. Modernist flat out refuses to accept others' viewpoints when they do that, which is disruptive if a continued practice. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I myself have never had any issues that I can think of with Modernist but it is always possible I just can't remember anything off the top of my head. I see no issue needing intervention at this time. As far as Claude Monet, as I said...there was an RFC from February and there is no consensus to remove the galleries there yet. And yeah...I did check the history, but if you want to debate the content issue further...there is always DRN. As long as trying to change the consensus will not be disruptive this soon after an RFC, I could support opening another discussion but I have to tell you I could also see if some might find it to be disruptive. I know nothing about any NFC concerns from Modernist. I just don't see anything here to block or ban over. Even Masem seems to agree with that much. But no...just because someone doesn't want a discussion does not mean we can force them. We still allow editing without discussion so just because we feel one editor is not as forthcoming as others does not mean you get to disregard their edit in this matter. Because we are talking about images...not text or claims without references etc.. On the Monet article I believe he did not have to explain himself as the RFC is pretty clear. If this is a pattern with Modernist I would support some sort of intervention but at the moment there is nothing but a content dispute and some less than cordial replies. Are there diffs to show a pattern?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

An editor that reverts changes made, where the changing editor has given reasons why something should be done within their view of policy and guidelines, and the reverting editor is just reverting without providing any comment or falling back to non-policy/guideline reasons, repeatedly, that is a problem. It's not necessarily an ANI problem but it is a civility problem in that editors are expected to explain their reasons for doing such actions. --MASEM (t) 06:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No, not when the view of the policy and guidelines are this off. There is nothing that says we have to remove galleries or that they are unacceptable on Wikipedia. There isn't. And the entire issue of Modernist not giving a rational or explanation is exaggerated a great deal.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, there appears to be some issue I see with the way that the OP has attempted what looks like a good deal of exaggeration to support their position.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Mark Miller, you wrote "If this is a pattern with Modernist ...", and Masem responded that, yes, it is. I can confirm that: Monet was not the first time I've been involved in a similar dispute with Modernist (one reason I refused to back down). Discussing things with editors he disagrees with is not one of Modernist's strengths. Preferably this can be dealt with outside of ANI, but that's not going to happen if you insist on keeping this "discussion" alive, slagging those of us who disagree with you. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"No, not when the view of the policy and guidelines are this off." If the person making the change is using a skewed view of policy/guideline to insist the change has to be made, the revert should be explaining that, not doing it without comment or "it looks fine to me". I'm not saying that the changer isn't scott free if they're misinterpreting policy, but reverting these should not be done without that, and discussion should take place by the reverter to explain what the problem with the changer's stance on policy is. Modernist, from my interactions, tends to simply fall back to arguments along the lines "I like it so it should stay", which is not helpful in the long run. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Masem - you and I have been having these conversations for years; you basically know my position and I basically know your position so when we discuss those issues together I see no great need to continously and redundantly repeat endless policy and guidelines interpretations. I've been having these discussions since 2006...Modernist (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Masem I asked for diffs. I am being told, point blank that you believe this is a pattern with Modernist when I asked. Now, please provide the diffs. I have gone through all of this. I see you are involved so you should have no trouble providing clear evidence that Modernist has a pattern of refusing to discuss his edits. On occasion we have butted heads, but I find you to be extremely reasonable.....much more so than you are being now.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion when History of painting was tagged with having too many non-free images lead to a discussion that went mostly nowhere because Modernist's common line "art has to be seen" (also accusing that the idea of separating the article into smaller parts was censoring them). The aformentioned RFC (Talk:Claude Monet#RfC: Are the galleries in the Monet article excessive?) was also a case that I ran into "art must be seen" arguments. Many of the arguments in both cases are the same ones he has brougth here. Mind you, I can't claim much more than that on the specific issue of image galleries, unlike what FoBM is able to claim (which might include article edit warring - that never happened w/ Modernist in my experience). I'm just saying from what I've seen with Modernist from these points is that they refuse to discuss the issue of too many images (whether an NFC issue or a free gallery issue). --MASEM (t) 03:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again Masem; I stand by all of those arguments made at length over the years; regarding the visual arts and imagery, especially in those threads. I'm right from my side - and maybe you are right to some extant from your side - but we are creating an encyclopedia and the founders and the foundation have set out some interesting principles from the onset - and one of those basic principles - is to use common sense. The articles are well formulated; and they convey important and relatively accurate encyclopedic information regarding the subjects described...Modernist (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I am simply providing the information Mark asked for, the instances I found your behavior dismissive of suggestion to change. --MASEM (t) 03:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough; I think we both go back to 2006, and it's been a long road and in my opinion we've made great progress since those days...Modernist (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am confused and a little annoyed right now. You state that Modernist refuses to discuss the issue of too many images (whether an NFC issue or a free gallery issue). That has already been demonstrated below to be false. In the actual diffs already provided I see huge amounts of explanation from Modernist and in the link you provide I see another huge discussion with Modernist taking the lead...again and stating: "Removed tags per long discussions; images are replaced with PD whenever possible - see [14] also...Modernist (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)", and "We have been discussing this for years and please read the link [15], the imagery is crucial to the subject and the galleries are practical, efficient, and economical...Modernist (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC) ", and "There is not one word about galleries in the link rather this paragraph that clearly is the basis for the use non-free imagery when there is no recourse (emphasis mine):

Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a

doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works,

primarily historically important photographs and significant modern

artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a

free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational

context without including the media itself. Because the inability to

include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many

jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions

without having license or permission. Some works that are under

licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these

conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free

media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace

with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.

We use the galleries because common sense tells us it is the best, most economic way to present the information here. These are paintings - visual works that must be seen - the format used is practical and works. The proviso use of non-free imagery here is always being reduced as works from the public domain become available...Modernist (talk]) 02:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)"

Our policy on the use of non free images in galleries is "Fair use images may almost never be included as part of a general image gallery, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of analysis or criticism). See Wikipedia:Fair use for more details." Almost never is not "never" and I think that discussion deteriorated more because you seemed to be in a disagreement with more than just Modernist but Slim Virgin as well, who started an RFC due to your posts and disagreements. Clearly modernist said waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than just "art has to be seen" in that discussion and does not support your claim that Modernist does not discuss the issue of too many images. Now the last thing (I sure as heck hope this is the last thing) I should say is this, Wikipedia image use gives us an example of how to use galleries with: 1750–75 in Western fashion and History of painting looks strikingly similar but with far more prose and images. If there are non free images in the galleries, it is on you to demonstrate how they are against our policy. Now, you are really good at that, but you are also not always correct and many times that is simply because NFC is just a guideline. It still takes a discussion to remove them for even being non free images being used incorrectly.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If there are non free images in the galleries, it is on you to demonstrate how they are against our policy.: we're talking about the law here, not mere Wikipedia policy. Images use must conform to the law, which means the onus for image use falls on whoever tries to add the image. We're lucky that the US even allows fair-use—Japan (where I live) doesn't, and their Wkipedia pages are often entirely bare of images at all as a result. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's why we use Fair Use Rationales when needed, although PD images are always recommended; and I agree with you - as much as I love Japan; we are far better off here, being able to use as much imagery as we do...Modernist (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes and no. There is no actual fair use "law" but case law where a number of decisions have been handed down. I am familiar with that actually. There is no exact definition of what even constitutes fair use. Copyright law is the particular area but even then it is rather ambiguous, but for Wikipedia, we have a much sterner approach to what we allow as fair use but the Foundation has been clear that we are to allow the use of non free content that is within our Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP). Masem and I have discussed this at length I believe some time ago. You're in Japan Curly Turkey? Then I should say gomenasai, for not realizing you were pinged above. Gosh, I had no idea Japan was so strict with their copyright issues. Haven't been there since I was three. Born there actually. Their earthquakes are supposed to make California feel like a Disneyland ride. I would have to agree that we in the US are lucky with most of our copyright/fair use laws but many people still get a bit confused with Freedom of panorama. But anywhoo...Wikipedia has a much sterner policy in place than just fair use case law to protect both the uploader and the works.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

My points are related to changes at about Oct 2013 (when the pge was tagged with non-free overuse) and beyond - the stuff pre-2013 is not a question. My point is still that Modernist and others fall back on "common sense" when others have pointed out NFC requires minimization of non-free image and almost never allows for non-free in galleries, and WP:SIZE which is an accessibility issue when 300+ images in an article is going to slow down the page loading and in some cases non-accessible on some browsers. Modernist simply falls back on "I like this", "art must be seen" and "common sense" claims but without trying to demonstrate how this meets policy (yes, IAR can apply, but we're talking NFC were there is no IAR wiggle room). The claim that splitting the galleries into separate articles is akin to censorship is extremely disconcerting, and the typical sign of ownership. People have offered solutions that provide the equivalent amount of content but in multiple pages, and this is flat-out rejected, and there's no attempt at a consensus solution. That's the issue here. (Please also consider how Modernist is reacting in this thread. This is the behavior that's the problem). --MASEM (t) 04:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me add - I am not trying to open the question if there are image problems on these articles or what the proper resolution is. That's a discussion that should be done elsewhere. I am simply reporting my experience in the process of trying to achieve a solution to the images on these article to fit better with consensus on image use through the rest of en.wiki (both free and NFC), of the resistance to work towards a solution that Modernist gives, in line with the issues that Fountain brings up. I'm providing that evidence and my take on the evidence, and comparing it to what I've seen before. I still don't think Modernist's behavior here requires ANI interaction, but it is important to document that Fountain's issues aren't isolated. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but you still need a consensus to do so. I think what is possible (and maybe you don't even realize it?) is that at the end of the day consensus requires discussion. In that discussion many different editors will use different arguments. Some will be detailed and make no sense at all, while some will be very simple and just be to the heart of the reasoning that, as images, there is no reference to show, no book to produce that contains all the answers. It still comes down to almost a simple !vote of keep or discard. At the NFC review board we are presented with stuff that is clearly a violation of the NFC criteria, some stuff that is less obvious...and sometimes things that are just not clear at all. In those case we certainly do have to go by the best and most rational argument in considering to keep or delete However, on an articles we have a slightly different standard with images alone, unless it is a formal RFC requiring a closer to make a decision based on the best rationales. I can think of a number of number of articles right now that I had to have admin reduce sizing or I, myself had to go into the rationale and add the correct information. The amount of non free content on Wikipedia that should not be here can be overwhelming and Masem is the go to guy for much of these issues, but...I know Masem and even I, as well as others who are very experienced in these issues, just don't have all the answers. And again, that's mainly because it just a guideline and one man/woman's opinion of a copyright violation is another man/woman's fair use for educational purposes. By the way...our standard is much higher than the laws, but by case law, educational purposes are covered. We just attempt to limit how many non free images we allow due to our own minimal use standard. But minimal use is about the minimal use of the work, ([T]he amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. 17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use) not how many works...by codification in copyright law. Minimal use over more than one work is a Wikipedia standard.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Policy language such as WP:NFCC#8, concerning non-free images, but not confined to WP:NFCC#8 or even to non-free images, tends to require sourced text in the article as a justification for the inclusion of an image. But this is not always possible. It may not even always be advisable. I think Modernist has good sensibilities in this area and we should cut him some slack. I don't detect any ulterior motives. Modernist is just creating an article that allows the reader to virtually inhabit an area of the visual arts that in all cases has been thoroughly explored by reliable sources. I don't think art education is the same as other forms of education. I think we all instinctively know this. It perhaps could better be called, in my opinion, art familiarity. Modernist has a good sense for writing about art and for providing examples of what he is writing about. I think that numerous examples are always preferable to a limited few examples. Art education in part relies on immersion in relevant images. Bus stop (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Bus Stop, nobody here has accused Modernist of ulterior motives—he's being accused of dodging discussion and denigrating those who disagree with him. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been clearer. User:Modernist is not trying to promote a personal vision. He articulates mainstream ideas and provides the images of the work that presumably embody those ideas. I happen to approve of this approach. Bus stop (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Bus Stop, you're really not paying attention, and it's frustrating. Whether his approach to the articles is appropriate or not is not what's being discussed. It's about Modernist's behaviour and personal interactions with those who disagree with his approach. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a note/comment. NFC#8 says nothing about sourced text. What it is does say is the non free image is used if it will significantly improve the readers understanding of the subject and removing it would be detrimental to that understanding. Image use policy states that images must have context to the subject: "Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text", but then WP:MOSIM only says: "Each image should be inside the major section to which it relates." The most common non free image used away from any relevant section or text is a film poster. Perhaps the most widely used non free content on Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If an editor writing about visual art has no agenda we should cut them some slack. The use of imagery in art education involves familiarizing the reader with something real but intangible. Monet was a painter like any other painter. The real "education" is in seeing the painting. I don't think putting relevant images in Commons is a realistic method of immersing the reader in the relevant imagery. This immersion should take place simultaneous to reading the text. If the immersion is not automatic there is the problem that the reader may never click on the link to Commons. Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

To Mark: 99% of the time, it is the easiest to show NFCC#8 is met by demonstrated sourced commentary about the image in question as that clearly meets contextual significance, as it takes out any question from a image reviewer of why that image is needed. Yes, you don't always need sourced commentary and we do give leeway to one or two images that have clear relevance, but if you start loading an article with multiple non-free without explaining their significance to the topic, either some have to be removed or better context is going to be necessary. Modernist has listened to this in the past (so this is a point in their favor) and has tried to justify most of the inline non-free elements with text explaining why the painting is important, so this point is not lost, but this tends to be an issue in the galleries which might include non-free as well. Galleries tend to lack the ability to give any type of contextual significance, and hence why we don't allow non-free in galleries except in very rare cases. (And the specific situation for cover art is that it is generally being used for implicit branding and identification of the notable work that it is for and as such being in the infobox is the most relevant section for the image inclusion). --MASEM (t) 13:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As for the amount of non free content in a gallery...that is a case by case situation and has no real over encompassing policy or guideline to follow, pretty much on purpose. At the 19th century article we have an RFC that has asked for more context on all images and that seems fair. I am not one of those that think editors have an inherent right to use as many NF images as they wish on articles or even in galleries, but what is too much is a matter of discussion and consensus. I will not get back into that old argument we had about the use of NF images in places other than the infobox to identify subjects. That was resolved I believe and the use of such images in other places besides the info box seems to be clear for now. Some galleries have excellent contextual significance and some less. So I don't want you to think I am arguing against that.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the current diffs

• The first diff, #84 was not needed and is just the OP showing us their work. The second diff, #85 is the revert by Modernist and contains an edit summary. I personally do not see anything "flippant" about it, but regardless of that, it was not uncivil.
• Diff #86 is the OP's revert back with this edit summary:"WP:LAYIM avoid over-image "stacks" and shoehorn galleries WP:Gallery (they are not "ok")". How is it not "OK"? The link that was left was to the manual of style and is not policy. It is just a guideline but more importantly...it doesn't say that. WP:Gallery does...in a paragraph below this: "However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." While I dislike the term shoehorn, that means trying to "shove" images in where they does not fit by use of a gallery. That is not what is going on here. When editors discuss the "shoehorn" part, I noticed they don't seem to mention this part (bolded for emphasis): "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 in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons" So just reverting or removing galleries with that link is just wrong and is not supported by Image use policy, and does not say galleries are not OK.
• Diff 87 is where the OP states they left a rational on the talk page. That's is nice...but they failed to mention it was actually a reply to Modernist who had already begun a discussion over deletions in 2011 with no replies....none. Then the OP states "8 months later..." Uhm...seriously...the first 4 diffs show nothing of any real concern except that the OP seems to not understand the full image use policy in regards to galleries. But had there been some issue...it would be stale by now.
• Diff #88. Eight months later and the OP reverts to the same version and Modernist reverts back, as the OP says, without comment. OK...but...neither did the IP editor.
• Diff #89 is where Coldcreation reverted back after the OP had reverted where they state above: "Since there seemed to be no rational given I reverted it". The IP didn't provide one either but that seems to matter little.
• Diff #90 is a very bad attempt to claim there is tag teaming going on and only shows a random vote where the two both voted the same way. Uhm....what exactly is that supposed to prove?
• Diff # 91 is where the OP now attempts to show tag teaming in discussion. Wait.....didn't the OP say there are no rationals provided. No explanations etc.? Funny thing...diff 91 actual proves that Modernist will certainly provide a pretty detailed rational. But...this is supposed to be demonstrating tag teaming by Modernist and Coldcreation. Again...funny thing...Cold creation only has 4 posts in that entire exchange. I also noticed this comment from the OP: "There is no need to establish or follow local consensus on edits when there are clear guidelines (and Wikipedia recommends against it)." I gotta tell you...that's a new one on me. The actual policy is that a local consensus cannot override the broader community consensus. In other words WikiProjects cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. The OP is attempting to tell editors that there is no need to come to a consensus because the policy is the broader community consensus. OK...but the Broader community consensus says that we can still have galleries so...I think that was clearly Wikilawyering.
• Diffs # 92, 93, and 94 are all from the same article and from that discussion where the OP appeared to be telling editors a consensus on that article didn't matter. I see no evidence that this is tag teaming.
• Diff #95 is actually a clear violation of WP:NPA. Discuss the contributions not the contributor. Curly Turkey created a thread on the Claude Monet talk page entitled: "Edits by Modernist and Coldcreation" where they accuse the two editors of "trying to scare contributors off by spamming your own messages to those talk pages".
• Diff #96 is the exact same diff as #91.
• Diff #97 is supposed to be an issue? We are still allowed to make use of BRD, are we not? If the discussion becomes intractable, that is indeed the very time to make a bold edit.

This took a great deal of time to go through (which I will never get back) and frankly I see a few problems with the overall exaggerations of the OP in both policy and guidelines as well as the overall issues with Modernist. Again, I see a campaign...but not from Modernist. We absolutely do not need to remove all galleries, just because they are galleries.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, Mark Miller, you've now made it crystal clear that you're gunning for a fight—as if it weren't already obvious with this edit and (amongst other inflammatory comments) its bad-faith "But you sure jumped on this fast enough" (I was very obviously respoding to both Fountains of Bryn Mawr and Modernist pinging me for comment). I bit my tongue then, but you obviously won't be satisfied with a full-on conflict.

I said it and I mean it: I have no intention of opening old wounds with Modernist, and what follows is not intended to do any such thing---we've put this behind us, and I intend to keep it there. It is nothing more than a direct response to Mark Miller's contentious, bad-faith, pot-stirring personal attack above:

This was in direct response to these clear-cut bad-faith edits intended to discourage editors from joining the RfC: [15][16][17][18][19][20]. The response to it was bad-faith accusations of CANVASSing, despite the fact the RfC notice was following to the letter the instructions at WP:RFC: entirely neutral (Quote: "Please join in the discussion at Talk:Claude Monet#RfC: Are the galleries in the Monet article excessive? about the number and choice of images in the galleries.") and posted only to the talk pages of WikiProjects the Monet page had already been tagged with. Your job: demonstrate how advertising an RfC strictly according to the WP:RfC instructions was in any way inappropriate, or strike your revisionist slander (yes, slander is precisely to the letter what it is—you're not getting around that one, Mark Miller).

So, Mark Miller, it's pretty obvious I've put every effort into getting this dispute out of ANI and onto the article talk page where it belongs. Tell everyone now what your motivation is for keeping this asinine discussion alive and slandering everyone in range. I'll take a "no one here owes you an explanation of anything" as conclusive evidence that your only goal was to stir the pot. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• I did miss that you were pinged and apologize for thinking you jumped in (my computer displays links that have not been clicked in a dark blue and that, along with the size of the fonts makes it difficult to see there is a link). However, your overly aggressive manner here and your overuse of my name, mentioning me over and over is one of your problems. You don't understand that WP:NPA is a serious policy and that you breached it by creating a specific thread on an article talk page about two editors. Then you were accused of canvasing but the replies to those project requests does not seem to be bad faith or actionable either.

You said: "you've now made it crystal clear that you're gunning for a fight" Really? Is that really true from the diff you show, where I tell you not to "Fight back" because it just creates drama? Look, the reason I comment is because I disagree with a great deal of this and when I took a close look the actions of others looked worse than those of Modernist. The thread has not been closed so, I replied to the continuing discussion. I am not the one that continued to discuss this after you said things had calmed down enough to continue on the talk page but I don't feel your actions do you credit. I think your above post was horrid and inappropriate.

• Per WP:NLT, you just committed a borderline "perceived" legal threat.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Legal threat"?! Oh, go harass someone else, Mark Miller. You're trolling. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Please lets not create more drama and stay calm; especially because there are far more important things to be done - CT you have important articles to write; and MM thank you so much for your good insights. Please lets close this thread...Modernist (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless any action is required, I agree this should probably be closed now.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Just to make some things clear, Wikilawyering could also be characterized as ignoring why I brought this here. The reason is behavior/ignoring guidelines (with no rational given) at 19th century. Problem #1 (not addressed) is when you read about "Athletics" you are looking at Ellen Terry and P. T. Barnum (hey, maybe they were kick ass athletes and I just learned something ;)). Problem #2 is shoehorning more images into a gallery. We are ignoring the main aim of the guideline ---> images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and not be just an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject. What we have is an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject. Can it be "improved?" Yeah, by adding 97 more people to the list or by simply replacing it with a themed gallery: all the 19th century "Emperors of Russia" or something of the sort. Since one is highly unlikely and the other would not be needed there was no common sense rational for the gallery. As for Monet, it was brought here as an example of past behavior (and was nothing I ever participated in or plan to participate in in the future). Impressionism was something I participated in (and for my troubles I was told I was an idiot and was not owed any explanation). That was ANI time but Modernist seemed to see some reason in the end (it was like pulling teeth) and I (like MASEM) haven't pursued it past that point. Modernist starting it up again at 19th Century brought us here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• While as stated above this is not the proper venue to discuss content - I'll say this: galleries and images are invaluable, educational tools we have to elucidate, describe and identify information for our readers. The 19th century article is a broad overview covering 100 years - it is also a century that has produced an enormous number of people who influenced and affected most of our lives in the 20th and 21st centuries. More so than earlier time periods the 19th century has directly impacted science; religion; industry; commerce; art; medicine; literature; philosophy and much more. The plethora of images elucidate in other ways then do the brief and discreet subject paragraphs. If you want to know more about 19th century theatre for instance - you'll need to read more specific articles about that subject; to be found elsewhere in wikipedia through links and images. To fully appreciate the text and the imagery at 19th century the reader doesn't necessarily have to 'walk and chew gum' but the reader needs to read the text and peruse the portraits separately in some cases, it's really not a big deal. The idea that images and galleries convey valuable and educational information in our articles is well established. I think this thread needs to be closed...Modernist (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Better left at the 19th century talk page but Modernist, you seem to overlook the fact that Wikipedia is not an image host (the Commons is). So a Wikipedia article will not depict everyone (everything) listed in the article (you go to a Commons category for that). The common sense cutoff across the consensus guidelines is "images should be relevant to the sections they are located in" and galleries should not be an un-encyclopedic "Gallery of X". No good reason has been put forward not to follow that common sense. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• You brought this here and now you say better left at the 19th century talk page. Simply you misread both guidelines regarding images and galleries. The article is an article that obviously you don't like; others apparently do like it. As you say perhaps this entire thread that you brought should have been opened at the 19th century talk page - perhaps consensus will determine the outcome there...Modernist (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• See WP:IMAGES and - MOS:IMAGES and WP:IUP Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in - all the imagery in 19th century are relevant to the 19th century article they appear in! Your misinterpretation - "images should be relevant to the sections they are located in" - where did that come from by the way? - what policy or guideline? and try this on please - Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. All the images used in the gallery are of highly relevant 19th century personages...Modernist (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Modernist, you don't appreciate how an overabundance of images with insufficient context can overload readers—and this is especially the case with broad subject overview-type articles. Too many tiny thumbnail images without the context to make sense of them is just noise to most readers. Balance and context are everything, and balance and context issues will not be solved by quoting policy back and forth at each other—they require editorial judgement. Until you accept that, you'll continually be butting heads with other editors who do see it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks CT - In the article we're discussing - 19th century the relevant section heading is: Significant people - a large topic - to the left are text in subsections and to the right are portraits of many significant people of the 19th century. Not too difficult to see or to understand. The images are all basically placed in the relevant section - Significant people - just not in the corresponding subsections for want of space. The gallery contains portraits of significant people like Leo Tolstoy, Søren Kierkegaard, Henry David Thoreau, and others that didn't fit above...Modernist (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Content removal by WP:SPAs at Misty Copeland

Resolved

 – SPI accounts blocked indefinitely for disruption. PhilKnight (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Today, two WP:SPAs have been removing the phrase "and adopted by African-American parents" from Misty Copeland as it pertains to her mother. Ccccccc67$$$$ twice removed the content today at this and this edit and Anonymous100000000222299 removed the same content at this edit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

From the usernames, they appear to be throw away accounts, probably created by the same user. Anyway, given they are edit warring to removing sourced content, and not engaging in any discussion, I've blocked them indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat?

As follow-up of the recent case Enough is enough the guy is back again. And again with another IP (= block evasion) But what me bothers is a potential legal threat here: in the summary. He states there: DELETED under the 1988 Data Protection Act: FRANCIS, DO NOT RE-INSTATE OR ELSE!. I did not revert it, as it looks to be some merit in it as a privacy violation. The Banner talk 13:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

He was issued a 3-day block 2 minutes after you posted this, and his attempt at a legal threat is a bluff. His general location (as per the Geolocate item on his contrib page) is public information. If he wants to not be identified by location, he should create a registered ID. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to fear that this will go on and on and on. But blocking the IP-range is most likely a draconian measure with too much collateral damage. The Banner talk 13:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's a relatively short list of articles he's attacking, maybe they could be semi-protected for a spell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Afterwriting

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

Personal attack on my talk page in edit at 02:17 on 25 August 2014 which includes profanity. User made previous personal attack to same page at 08:09 on 10 August 2014 and was warned accordingly. User has also left inappropriate edit summaries which have also included profanity: [21] & [22]. AldezD (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTCENSORED, use of "profanity" does not automatically turn a legitimate criticism of another user's apparently disruptive behaviour into a "personal attack". Per WP:DICK, use of the phrase "don't be a dick" is even among other uncensored/uncensorable profanities uniquely accepted on Wikipedia. Per WP:DTTR I would submit that the OP is in fact the one at fault here for haranguing another user on their talk page. 182.249.240.43 (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC) (this user's phone)

BTW, by what moon logic does Copyedits. This must be one of the most badly written and boring articles on Wikipedia. A complete dog's breakfast. qualify as an "inappropriate edit summary which also included profanity"? 182.249.240.43 (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED does not negate WP:PERSONAL, and the user had been warned accordingly prior to the second attack. AldezD (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What attack??? 182.249.240.43 (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah okay, I see it now: he called you "arrogant" and accused you of violating WP:OWN (an accusation that may or may not have merit, but is seldom made without some kind of background...), so you templated his talk page multiple times, he removed your templates, you then accused him again of making personal attacks solely for removing the templates, and now you are asking the admin corps to block him for using debatably foul language? It seems like we're only hearing one side of this story... 182.249.240.43 (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I think he's talking about the vulgarisms used in those items he linked. Or maybe he's confused about what FYI means. It means "for your information". Meanwhile "WP not censored" has to do with article content. It's not a license to hurl low-life language at another editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when other users repeatedly link a particular guideline/policy page in a certain context, I have a tendency to take their word for it that it is relevant. Anyway, if one user harangues another user to the point where the latter is driven to use one or two curse words, the standard procedure is to block/ban the harasser and leave a polite reminder to keep it cool on the talk page of the user who used foul language. So far, the emerging timeline of this dispute indicates that that is exactly what happened here, and the OP appears to have disingenuously hidden said timeline for other users to have to dig it up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No one is "driven" to talk like a low-life, they choose to do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have more patience that 99% of Wikipedians, and I applaud you for this, but please bear in mind that not everyone shares that patience. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The user's talk page has not been "templated...multiple times". The user made an unconstructive edit to The Chase (UK game show) (that included grammatical and spacing errors, and did not follow general principles of WP:MOS) and an appropriate notification was left on the talk page. The user responded to the warning with an edit summary that included profanity ([23]) and also left a personal attack on my own page. Following the first personal attack, the appropriate template was left on the user's page as a warning, after which again the user removed the template and included an edit summary with profanity ([24]). A warning was left today again regarding the second personal attack before the ANI was opened. AldezD (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Fiddle faddle. Stop it with the template abuse on Afterwriting's page. Don't post there unless you have something constructive to say, and use humanspeak, not templates, for the purpose or you may be sanctioned for battleground editing. Those edit summaries aren't models of courtesy, but neither is it surprising that your persistent templating irritated the user into what you call "profanity". ("Bullshit" can sometimes be a usefully descriptive word.) Bishonen | talk 15:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC).

I have only made four edits to the user's talk page—two were in response to the personal attacks already linked above. The others were the original template & clarification for the user's edit to The Chase (UK game show), and the notice of this ANI. AldezD (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

All four of those edits were to add templates, which either said, condescendingly, "Welcome to Wikipedia", or threatened him with a block. Of the two "personal attacks" mentioned, it seems that so far you have only linked one borderline personal attack (this one) and are under the impression that adding mild profanity to otherwise completely innocuous comments on user behaviour qualifies as a personal attack. However, it seems that the one engaged in disruptive behaviour is you more than anyone else and said behaviour just pushed another user slightly over the edge, and I think you should drop it before you see a WP:BOOMERANG effect. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That edit summary is indeed a direct, low-life style personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

So, wait, you didn't like some of his stylistic choices so you posted a "Welcome to Wikipedia" notice on the talkpage of a user who has been here since 2005? I'm sorry, but that kind of bugs me, especially considering several other parts of his "unconstructive edits" (the parts where he was clearly fixing the broken grammar) were apparently acceptable to you. You re-inserted an obviously broken sentence to the lede, and I guess you consider this justified by the minor misprint of "the" as "thr"? Why didn't you re-revert him on this point after it was re-added? Was it just an honest mistake the first time? We all make mistakes from time to time, but when you made this mistake your talk page wasn't tagged with a "warning" from your Wikipedia junior that included the phrase "Welcome to Wikipedia", and you are not now being threatened with a block. Your OP comment here contained four diffs, two of which you claimed were personal attacks but one was just a seemingly accurate assertion that you are engaged in disruptive templating and the other was a slightly more aggressive version of the same; the other two you claimed included "profanity" but of these only one actually did. And yes, when something like 70 of the past 500 edits to the article are one user constantly (and blindly) reverting the edits of what looks like dozens of other users (who likely account for the majority of the other 430 edits), that certainly does look like an OWN scenario. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Although the user has been here since 2005, the user consistently receives notifications from BracketBot based upon the user's edits not containing proper coding. That, and the user's revision which included capitalization & spacing not consistent with WP:MOS in this edit was the impetus for the template warning on 7 August.

Have you reviewed the content I have reverted? The reversions are not "blindly" being made. The edits are either vandalism ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]), re-addition of content that was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes ([31], [32]—specifically, the Episode results section and additional unsourced details, [33], [34], [35]) or other unsourced additions ([36], [37]). AldezD (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't give a damn about some game show in the UK, so I don't care about the content. As for the stylistic choices, I have to agree with Afterwriting on a lot of them. You reinserted inappropriate "in-universe" language with no explanation into a section title ("Final Chase" should have inverted commas), for instance. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable stuff. Afterwriting made a pretty good copyedit of the article (which as Hijiri88 notes, you seem to have ownership issues with) that included him making one typo and not only did you make a wholesale revert, but you templated him and and added your own personal note questioning his competence. It's one of the more condescending things I've seen on Wikipedia and that's saying something. I think his response to you was perfectly appropriate. Jenks24 (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

So my initial template also warrants a second harassing message from the user despite no further interaction after the initial exchange? AldezD (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverts and edit summaries at the article would in question would still be "interaction". Jenks24 (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Please review the article's history as well as the talk pages for the user and for me. The user hasn't made any edits to the article since 7 August, the date of my reversion. The user's first personal attack was 10 August, and the second 24 August. AldezD (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• So, to be clear, the OP reverted a (mostly) perfectly good copyedit - at least one section was a clear improvement - and then templated the editor for unconstructive editing, leading him to revert it with a profane but frankly quite understandable edit summary. The OP then templated him again with a level 3 NPA for the edit summary. Under the circumstances, I'd agree with Jenks24. I don't see any reason for admin action here and would suggest closing this. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• No, this is not the order of events.

1. I undid an edit the user made that introduced a spelling error, removed commas and introduced capitalization & grammar issues.—[38]
2. The user undid my revision and then made additional edits to the article that introduced additional grammar issues—[39]
3. I cleaned up the user's edit—[40]
4. The user made additional edits that introduced grammatical errors "If the contestants elects to play...", "Once the contestants nominates"—[41]
5. I cleaned up the user's edit—[42]—and left a template message on the user's talk page with additional revision explaining the grammar issue.
6. The user left a personal attack on my talk page—[43]
7. I warned the user about the personal attack and noted prior warnings by other editors for inappropriate edit summaries—[44]
8. The user left a second personal attack on my talk page—[45]
9. I warned the user about the personal attack and opened the ANI—[46]

The user and I had no user space interaction between #7 and #8 above, and there were no interactions in article content after #5. AldezD (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• In reality, your (1) introduced grammatical errors ("contestants'" is correct), and your (3) isn't a cleanup as some of the language is actually poorer (i.e. the repetition of the word "contestants"). And in reality, your (5) didn't only "explain the grammar issue", you questioned their competence as an editor. Still, if you think leaving an "unconstructive editing" warning template on the talk page of an experienced editor for a couple of minor spelling errors is a good idea, then I suspect that the edit summary he left won't be the last one you get. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You undid dozens of probably good-faith edits to the article. Among said edits was a mostly-good copyedit by an established Wikipedian. When said Wikipedian reverted you, fixing almost all of his own mistakes, and accused you of OWNership, you reverted back, all the time belittling him and "welcoming" him to Wikipedia on his talk page. When said user told you to knock it off, you continued to post inane template-talk on his page. At some point in this process you were called "arrogant" and unpleasant to work with. You took this as a personal attack, and also apparently take the use of "profanity" like "bullshit" and "don't be a dick" (I noticed he used the word "fuckwit" elsewhere, but you don't seem to be referring to that) and "dog's dinner" as personal attacks, and are now asking for this user to be blocked? Please just give it a rest. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Try not to get wrapped around the axle over "NPA" vs "NOTCENSORED" and realize that "This must be one of the most badly written and boring articles on Wikipedia. A complete dog's breakfast." is a shitty and unnecessary thing to say. Yes, it is specifically talking about "content, not contributors", but c'mon. We don't need to leave edit summaries like this. However, the answer to an edit summary like that is not to find the closest Wikipedia policy which matches the perceived slight and template the bejesus out of the editor who left it. Protonk (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG?

I'm feeling increasingly that the OP deserves to be sanctioned or at least warned for WP:OWN on this article (among others?) and for abuse of usertalk templates. Immediately after being told off by myself and several admins here, he went straight back to the article[47] and did the exact same thing again[48] to another user. That user (unlike the subject of the above thread) is relatively new and apparently doesn't understand our sourcing standards, but it would appear that Aldez reverted to an outdated figure when "557" appears to be slightly more up-to-date as of now. (The currently-cited source is inherently WP:UNRELIABLE when it comes to up-to-date figures for an ongoing game show.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact he's left four consecutive messages on that user's talk page, mostly accusing said user of adding unsourced information, even though all that happened in the other three cases was replacing of one unsourced number/date with another unsourced number/date -- Aldez did not template either of the other users involved in these "disputes".[49][50] Additionally, I find it somewhat disturbing that someone is going around asking for blocks to be issued for "foul language" when that person considers "dog's dinner" to be foul language. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think sanctions are necessary for either editor right now. I agree with Protonk's above post that both should strive for more civility. More consensus-building would help to alleviate perceived issues of page ownership. Because discussions form a large part of consensus-building, AldezD should employ fewer templated warnings and unilateral reverts. A polite note on the talk page works just as well as a patronizing template, and it often invites a more civil discourse. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Concerns on Brahma Kumaris article

Regarding Brahma Kumaris article. Last time a new editor jumped in and started deleting large amounts of RS based material I was told at WP:SPI under the first checkuser comment it could have been handled here as WP:Duck. There may also be other policies that relate to disruptive/suspect editing that are pertinent. For the sake of keeping things tidy, the concern relates to 2 fairly new editing accounts (though one is probably now abandoned). The first account in question (that hasn't been used since May) had only one stint of edits. The same revert was made by this banned user as their first edit too. Thanks to User:McGeddon reverting, that strategy failed and the account appears to have been discarded. The second accountin question has only edited on 3 separate occasions in August, all in relation to one topic. On each of those 3 occasions, substantial RS based content has been deleted - I thought the contribs would be the easiest way to see the wholesale deletions. A bot reverted this one as suspected vandalism, so the editor simply did a slightly reduced machete job. The rhetoric is concerningly similar to comments by these banned users/suspected socks [51] [52] [53] which may or may not be part of an even longer lineage of socks Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lucyintheskywithdada/Archive that stalk this article. The changes now being made appear to be piecemeal cut and pastes from the way the article was at the time this user was blocked. The user openly uses multiple accounts, here creating a new account to edit their talk page because their access was removed from the old now blocked account. I don't usually like to suggest blocking people, but it's hard to see either of these accounts contributing to Wikipedia. My hope was to get this nipped in the bud before either of the accounts get established and resume a path of disruptive editing. The way User:Truth_is_the_only_religion edits, they are clearly not new to Wikipedia which raises the question of why they are not using their previous account. Their username doesn't suggest they have the most openminded approach to editing religious/spiritual topics. I have stalled posting here for a few weeks to see if anything useful came out of the account, but now consider that highly unlikely. Advice/suggestions most welcome. Regards and thanks Danh108 (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you think you have sufficient basis to file a sockpuppet investigation that would probably be an appropriate step to take. Not really sure what else to say based on the information given.John Carter (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John Carter. I can try that. However I remember last time User:Adjwilley raised a sock he was advised by TParis that it would have been better handled here as WP:Duck. I can't get the exact diff because it has been archived, but it is in the checkuser comments here [54]. It's a bit worrying if old users can just waddle back in with the same quacking and resume their disruptions...each block makes them older and wiser about how to work the system too.Danh108 (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• It seems clear to me that the account is not new, but User:JamesBWatson's comments here are definitely worth reading. Perhaps the account should be blocked per WP:CGTW #14 :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Well Adjwilley, maybe I am getting a bit cynical :'( I do appreciate this users sense of humour though - they always choose great usernames. My favourite was Lucy in the sky with Dada (Dada is a name for the BK co-founder). Reading JBW's comments it looks like I may have been premature in posting here....anyway, it's nice to be part of a forgiving community...maybe the editor has put aside their battleground mentality I'm wrong about this editors connection to past Wiki accounts. Nice to know there are people keeping a watchful/experienced eye on things :-) CheersDanh108 (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23's conduct in enforcing article probation

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

---

This is related to the "Men's rights movement" article probation and the administrative actions of Bbb23.

There are two recent cases I find odd.

1. In the article domestic violence (article history) user called Casusbelli1 made four edits, which were reverted by another user. Casusbelli1 then made two smaller edits, which were unrelated to the rationale the other user made his revert on and was only very partial (a single paragraph on the issue of same-sex partners and domestic violence). That was then discussed on the article talk page, which is perfectly healthy BRD. Bbb23 proceeded to attach a warning to Domestic violence that it is related to the men's rights article probation. He warned Casusbelli1 on his talkpage to not edit-war and 1RR. This was rebuked by me and another user, Tutelary, on Casusbelli1's talk page. We argued that the whole MRM probation being extended to domestic violence is far-streched, as the domestic violence ratio of gay men hardly is a MRM topic. I made sure to use the ping feature to notify Bbb23 but he did not respond to either me or Tutelary despite both of essentially completely disagreeing what he had done.
2. Memills, who has a history of MRM article probation sanctions, made two edits: 1 one to masculism and the other one 2 to Michael Kimmel. Both of the edits were reverted by Sonicyouth86, who posted a comment on Memill's talk page and asked Bbb23 to perform an administrative action on Memills. Tutelary disagreed with that in the same section, again something what Bbb23 just ignored and did not reply to. Between the comments to Memills' and Bbb23's talkpage, Bbb23 had already proceeded to inform that Memills has been indefinitely topic banned from anything broadly related to "men's rights", including any page like WP:RSN, apparently based on Sonicyouth86's and his own assessment that Memills' edits were harmful. The previous actual ANI case on a potential Memills topic ban was turned down. An indefinitive topic ban is a harsh measure, especially as this time Memills' edits seemed reasonable enough. What's more important however is that Bbb23 is not an uninvolved admin: he has blocked Memills before and has had quarrels with him on his talkpage. Is an indefinite topic ban within the limits of a normal admin action anyway, given that an earlier attempt at ANI failed?

Is Bbb23 able to continue enforcing the article probation? In any case I wish article probations like that had a more diverse group of admins enforcing it, because it seems like they easily turn into battlegroundish behauvior. --Pudeo' 04:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

As shown here at the Domestic violence article talk page, Bbb23 having placed the Domestic violence article under Men's rights movement/Article probation has nothing to do with gay men. And as shown in this section, I called on Bbb23 to consider putting that article under Men's rights movement/Article probation. Such probation has to do with men's rights editors, and those similar, highjacking every topic that reports women as the majority of victims, such as domestic violence, and trying to give false balance to men as victims. This has recently been the case with the Reproductive coercion article, where one such editor WP:Canvassed men's rights editors to show up at that article; the Reddit thread that the editor used to WP:Canvass shows "battlegroundish behauvior" and bashes Kevin Gorman. Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, you seem eager to apply sanctions on pages which you are personally having a content dispute with. Additionally, is there any evidence that these editors you're smearing are 'men's rights editors'? Tutelary (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support both Both the enforcement of article probation, and the topic ban for Memills look fine - their poor behaviour continued after I closed the ANI as barely not implementing a topic ban. By the way, by bringing Memills topic ban here to ANI, you realize that you're going to turn it into a community-imposed topic ban now? I'm not sure Memills would have appreciated that, but whatever the result of the discussion, it's a fait accomplit the panda ₯’ 09:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt that is exactly what Sonicyouth86 and Bbb23 intended, given their involvement in the previous AN. That didn't go in their direction, so, here is the second attempt. Battlegroundish. However, note that the AN request was about Bbb23 and whether (1) Bbb23 should continue enforcing the article probation, and (2) whether there should be a more diverse group of admins involved in the MRM pages. It was not an AN to reverse either administrative action taken by Bbb23. Memills (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support both Bbb23's actions. And I add.......about time. Also...would wholeheartedly support an upgrade to a community topic ban.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support both enforcement and topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support both Bbb23 has done nothing wrong here. Also support (indirectly) upgrading tban to a community tban. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support both Casusbelli1 has edited or commented on Domestic violence and Men's rights movement and Reproductive coercion so MRM certainly applies, and two edits remove the same text (01:15 and 07:34) so a 1RR warning applies (is the admin supposed to impose 1RR and not warn, creating a trap?). I can't sum up the Memills situation in a few words, except to say that it is time for relief from the MRM advocates. Johnuniq (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Article sanctions don't carry between pages, it's on an individual article basis only. My 1 revert on Men's Rights Movement doesn't establish itself to my revert about The Legend of Korra or even similar topics, such as Abortion (though it does have its own sanctions). Tutelary (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support both The description of the first case contains a false statement about the talk page warning. Casusbelli1 was not warned for 1RR on their talk page in this warning. It was for WP:3RR concerns and it was explicitly not a warning under MRM probations. (The OP should strike this misinformation.) The talk page warning looks reasonable and designed to prevent disruptions without blocks. In the second case there is the suggestion that the admin is WP:INVOLVED because they have dealt with the editor as an admin and blocked them in the past. "Involved" doesn't work that way.__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • 1RR is discussed in his section, the article probation with 1RR was extended to that article, he had made only one revert so clearly 1RR was implied. Bbb23 was not involved in the content dispute, but if you take a look at Memills' talk page see how many times he has been rebuking or sanctioning Memills. Bbb23 actually voted support for the topic in the ANI, which was rejected, then goes to indef topic ban him weeks later. You don't feel there could be a less involved admin available for such a heavy sanction like indef topic ban?--Pudeo' 13:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • 1RR was mentioned in relation to how it was not the specific reason for the warning. We aren't talking about a block here, just a talk page warning, and those are often and correctly given out before 3RR is formally breached, at admin discretion. It's what admins are expected to do, when they believe it will prevent imminent disruption. This talk page reminder seems reasonable in context. Your analysis of the editor's history is flawed as well; there was more than one revert to the same material so he had made only one revert is also a false statement. Bbb23 was crystal clear that the warning was not dependent on the probation. It is patently misleading to misrepresent it as a warning based on the probation. The warning says it was for actions taken not in the sections covered by the probation and for more general edit warring concerns. And as far as "involved" goes, an admin who has previously expressed an opinion about whether certain actions deserve blocking is not "involved". If that were the case no admins could give warnings or advice or communicate about an editor previous to blocking without being "involved", an obviously impossible scenario.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Can you give diffs for Casusbelli1's other revert? This is the only one and it is just a partial revert (448 out of 1522 bytes). His other edit is copyediting. Earlier edits (in early August) stand to this day. He did only one revert. --Pudeo' 14:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support both and support community topic ban for Memills. Considering the level of misinformation and what has become a repeat pattern of Men's rights advocate editor trying to remove Bbb23 from moderating this area I would suggest WP:Boomerang might be worth considering--Cailil ^talk 13:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Did you call me a "men's rights editor"? For the record, I have never made attempts to remove Bbb23 from moderating this area, this is the first ANI I've ever commented on Bbb23. A repeated pattern is formed pretty fast, then. And please do point out all that missinformation, I'd be glad to fix it. --Pudeo' 13:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment to all of the above: Flyer22 reverted Casusbelli1's edits (1 revert) and after that Casusbelli1 did only that one very partial revert on the issue of same-sex couples (1 revert). Is there any reason why Casusbelli1 was warned for edit-warring, considered to suddenly be in article probation area and why Flyer22 was not considered to be edit-warring when they both had made just 1 revert? One potential reason is that Bbb23 just personally disagreed with Casusbelli1. Casusbelli1 is a new user: is it a nice greeting to post a huge "stop, you are edit-warring or you will blocked" after doing just one revert? Also, if an user has edited an MRM article: the article probation can be just extended to a section of domestic violence of same-sex couples after that user happens to edit there? That's pretty absurd in my opinion, given that the article probation has 1RR and other severe sanctions, the scope should be pretty clear. --Pudeo' 13:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I already stated above that the article probation is not about same-sex couples. Furthermore, like I stated on the talk page to Casusbelli1, "I was focused on one line [he] removed, and felt that editors might want to discuss some of [his] removals." The same-sex couple content he removed was poorly sourced, and so I didn't much object to that removal...other than stating that, per the WP:Preserve policy (policy, not simply a guideline), he should look for better sources to see if the content can be validly supported. Flyer22 (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, regarding why Bbb23 did not warn me, I think he took a WP:Don't template the regulars approach. I am already familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and with how Men's rights movement/Article probation works. Flyer22 (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Compare the history with An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.. The editor warned was clearly closer than Flyer22 to potential trouble at that time. The one warning wasn't directly based on 1RR or discretionary sanctions, but basic WP:3RR. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Differentiate edits and reverts. Casusbelli1 made edits (modifying content), which does not constitute a revert in 3RR, these edits reverted by Flyer22, and in turn Casusbelli partially reverted Flyer22. Both made one revert and that was normal BRD. --Pudeo' 15:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If they both made one revert, that's BRRD, not BRD. Any failure of BRD might be interpreted as evidence of edit-warring or potentially imminent edit-warring by an admin, at their judgement and discretion at the time. An admin discussing the avoidance of edit-warring on a person's talk page after they've failed BRD is common to the point of being routine admin work. No block was issued there. If the admin's actions prevented disruption without sanctions being handed out, that is a positive outcome.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That could be it, Flyer22. However, some transparency would be appreciated in expanding the article probation. Potentially almost any social issue could be a "men's rights" topic. Is it based on a single administrator's consideration, does it have to be edited by an editor considered to be symphatetic to the MRM (according to who?) or just any editor who has edited those articles? Labelling other editors "men's rights editors" or "feminist editors" could be a personal attack and atleast definitely against assuming good faith. --Pudeo' 15:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider calling editors "men's rights editors" or "feminist editors" to be a WP:Personal attack violation, especially when it's obvious that they are such editors, and I'm certain that the vast majority of Wikipedia editors feel like I do on that. Sure, "men's rights editor" or "feminist editor" can be considered dirty words and/or a personal attack simply because of the strong political nature and hatred many people have for both the masculism and feminism sides, but calling an editor either does not violate a WP:Personal attack. Something else to think about is that some of our editors proudly identify as feminists on Wikipedia, but I don't see any masculinist editors proudly identifying as such on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So you wouldn't mind if I called you a Communist or a Marxist when editing certain social topics? Those are polarizing labels and why the editor in question didn't like it that you slapped a label on them. The reasoning on why WP:NPA is there in the first place is that it creates a polar divide between editors and prohibits reasonable and constructive discussions on the article's content. Right now, people in this noticeboard have separated people into two different polarizing groups and is currently inhibiting the discussion on the page. Your accusations of canvassing have further polluted the water, and created a semi-witch hunt because obviously, any editor who is arguing in favor of the status quo on the page was obviously canvassed to it and we should dismiss their thoughts entirely. Tutelary (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's the canvassing that polluted the waters, not the accusations and the subsequent admission. Take it easy. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's more telling when people associate someone to a movement when the individual doesn't ascribe it to themselves. Wikipedia shouldn't be about identifiers, such things fall into the realm of battleground behavior and is disruptive to collaboration. Editors that choose to identify themselves with a particular identity are already drawing battle lines, and the only point I see from trying to push someone into a political group is to poison the well with regard to certain arguments. This is disruptive wether it's coming from "feminist", "MRA", "Liberal", "Conservative" or any other identifier. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support probation and topic ban I'm surprised that this had to reach ANI. I would have rather dropped a good job note to Bbb23 on his efforts. Pudeo, you should perhaps pester Bbb23 more, than coming here. Wifione ^Message 15:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Bbb23 did not respond to my or Tutelary's comments on Casusbelli1's talk page. Since those critical questions were ignored, I made this ANI as I can't discuss something by myself only. Especially I find it very important to know on what basis the article probation is expanded on, that shouldn't be ignored by the operating admin. --Pudeo' 15:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support probation and topic ban - This is long overdue and a good move by Bbb23 --94.175.85.144 (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support both. Memills just came back from a six-month topic ban and barely avoided an indefinite topic ban last month. The closing admin noted that Memills has been disruptive and advised him to voluntarily withdraw from the men's rights topic area. But Memills went back to the same men's rights articles and the same behavior. To give just one example: In May 2013, Memills was blocked for one month for violating 1RR at Masculism. Memills added POV commentary ("which she erroneously believes"), synthesis and a bunch of mistakes to the article and then edit-warred over his edit. He also added some other obvious POV material (such as unrelated info sourced to blacklisted men's rights website A Voice for Men) and misrepresented sources. In October 2013, he edited the same paragraph, deleting it in its entirety and giving his personal opinion that the material was "inaccurate". This month, he went back to the same paragraph and removed it with a patently false edit summary. His edit was reverted and Memills went back to the paragraph for a second time this month and restored most of the synthesis that he tried to add in May 2013. He was reverted again, so this time he just re-reverted without consensus and despite the fact that several editors have explained why his contributions re this particular paragraph are unhelpful. Contrary to Pudeo's misleading assertion that Memills' most recent topic ban is based on only one edit in the article masculism, Memills was sanctioned for a pattern of tendentious editing that spanned over a year. Despite the many sanctions and despite DangerousPanda giving Memills the benefit of the doubt and letting him off with a warning, Memills' keeps going back to the same articles and disruptive editing. His repeated attempt to add a diatribe from a fringe men's rights journal to Michael Kimmel's BLP is yet another example. Most worrying of all is that after eight sanctions, multiple discussions and several warnings, Memills' still doesn't seem to understand why his editing is disruptive and how it violates our content and behavioral policies. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose both As noted in the last AN re these issues, there is an attempt by some here to censor Wikipedia.

Sonicyouth86 -- think we have a disagreement about what the word "disruptive" means. For myself and others, disruptive does not refer to edits or Talk page discussions that are designed in improve the accuracy and neutrality of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly clear that there are some folks here who find that edits or discussion that are counter to their strongly held POVs can be labeled as "disruptive" as a gambit to silence and censor such views. I strongly disagree with censorship, and I believe it seriously damages WP.

Peudo -- I appreciate your concern Bbb23's behavior with respect to me and to others, and your concerns about some of the perspectives expressed above. But my sense is that we are preaching to the wrong choir -- one that comes from a different WP "faith tradition" where is OK to silence and censor editors and ideas with which one strongly disagrees. We need to appeal to a "higher power."

At this point, the focus should turn to Bbb23. Bbb23 has repeatedly violated administrator conduct policies. He was called out on this once by Jimbo himself, who asked Bbb23 to resign. The same issues regarding Bbb23's administrative actions that Jimbo complained about have continued, and are still at issue here. Some of these violations are subtle, especially since Bbb23 refuses to discuss and defend his administrative actions that affect editors (which is against WP policy). In this case, Bbb23 failed to even include a Diff of my edit in question on my Talk page when imposing an "indefinite topic ban" and apparently Bbb23 simply uncritically accepted the post of a highly involved and highly opinionated editor on my Talk page. A couple of Bbb23's recent actions have been obvious and blatant policy violations. Others are more subtle, but could be revealed by statistical patterns of non-neutral sanctioning, etc. To bring this to light will require a bit of background research. Bbb23's overt and subtle administrative policy violations that prompted Jimbo's previous warning to Bbb23 ("I think you need to resign your admin bit. Your actions are very very far outside the standard that I expect admins to follow") deserves a thorough examination by the Arbitration Committee. Memills (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Memills, Jimbo's only human. In this case he was all-too human. (I mean, "wrong".) Drmies (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

*Drmies, presumably you agree that Bbb23 is only human too? Also capable of being "wrong"? Opinions here on both sides are already ossified. It is time to have some fresh eyes from the Arbitration Committee review the long history of Bbb23 administrative actions and assess who was "more wrong" re these issues, Jimbo or Bbb23

• Bbb is highly human and highly fallible, caring neither for bacon nor Alabama football. I have tried to reform them, for years now, yet they somehow managed to get the community's trust and be picked for admin. (I don't think Jimbo ran for that office.) Of course Bbb is fallible, but you're waving Jimbo's opinion around like it's a litmus test, and it isn't, as NeilN indicates below. If you want to start something, start with a Request for Comment/User. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Nah, Jimbo's opinion is just that - Jimbo's opinion. It would count for something more if he actually participated in the day to day maintenance of Wikipedia, patrolling WP:BLPN, actively contributing to areas under sanction, dealing with POV-pushers and offwiki collaborations. He's free to make declarations from his talk page of course, and some of them are useful, but I'll listen a lot more closely to the opinions of admins who do the actual heavy lifting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support both- The descriptions posted by the OP are back asswards, and it's beyond obvious that the amount of canvassing for advocates has devolved and gotten way out of hand. The declarations of wrong doing by a couple shit stirrers only highlights the need for admin action, probation and topic bans. Strongly support all. Dave Dial (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It would be good if you didn't use unnecessarily profane words because that kind of hostile language doesn't feel very constructive. My account of the happenings has been disputed in two ways: that 1RR wasn't implied in Casusbelli1's warning (I've already explained why I think it was, after just one revert) and that Casusbelli1 reverted more than once (which is not true according to the article history. My account is in chronological order with appropriate links. If you feel it it wrong, I have nothing against you writing your own version with similar diffs, instead of name-calling. --Pudeo' 19:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hold on folks - this AN was NOT a request for votes re Bbb23 actions. The issues were whether (1) should Bbb23 continue enforcing the article probation on MRM articles? and (2) should there be a more diverse group of admins involved in the MRM pages? Those are the issues that were raised. My votes on these issues follow.

• No: "should Bbb23 continue enforcing the article probation on MRM articles?" Non-neutral enforcement, personal involvement, etc.
• Yes: "should there be a more diverse group of admins involved in the MRM pages?" This one is a no-brainer. Memills (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Wait--have you stopped beating your wife? Drmies (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

...what have you heard? Only MRAs beat their wives (insert RS here). I'm not an MRA. Memills (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like everybody misunderstood the exact same way. How are we supposed to find consensus if everybody agrees on the wrong thing? /ironic comment __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Cognitive biases, especially the Self-serving bias and groupthink. Memills (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's not obvious, people are rejecting the original description and choices. When you bring something to ANI you don't get to decide what the community reactions will be. Everyone is fully aware of the false choices presented by the OP, and have rejected them. Dave Dial (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently everyone was not "fully aware" -- per the comment just above: "Looks like everybody misunderstood the exact same way. How are we supposed to find consensus if everybody agrees on the wrong thing?" But, heck, as long as we can see things as we wish and vote on anything we want:

• Support: "Ice cream for everyone!"Memills (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just the the OP didn't realize that those who frequent ANI can usually spot bullshit when they see it, and fling it back with a shovel. I personally took a lot of flack for the way I closed the last ANI ... the least you could have done was to behave appropriately. the panda ₯’ 20:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, behave!

Don't take others' word for it, Panda. Check out the actual diff of the edit that triggered this new round of 'shoveling'... Nothing to write home to momma about. "Evolutionist psychology" (sic) never suggested that sex roles are complementary, just the opposite. I tried to set that straight. For the good of the article, for the good of WP. And for people all over the world who might read it and otherwise be led astray.

You should be proud of me, Panda. I done good by you. Memills (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat for reverting material with unreliable source material

Please note edit [55] where Copyrights once lasted 56 years has made a legal threat against me for reverting his edits on The Janoskians‎ which contained unreliable sources. AlanS (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• @AlanS: Do you think this helped or harmed the situation? Protonk (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Left a note. I'd prefer not to indef the user for this because it's a transparently toothless threat aimed at an editor who clearly wasn't cowed by it. Protonk (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Considering the threat has been made twice now and a warning given I would suggest zero tolerance to further legal intimidation. Chillum 15:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Chillum: Where was the first threat? Protonk (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, just the one, I misread the links. Chillum 15:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Protonk: Agreed it was a limp threat. However, my experience so far has been that any threat limp or not aught be brought here, due to there being a zero tolerance policy around legal threats. AlanS (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree with bringing it here one whit. I do think that saying "You've just made yourself a huge mistake there my friend" is not exactly the best response. Apologies for messing up the diff link in the comment I made above. Meant to point to your first response to the threat, not the threat itself. That was probably confusing. Protonk (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. I was just a little surprised about having a legal threat made (however limp it was). Will resist the urge to react and if I encounter the same situation (or similar) in the future I'll just report it here without any sort of statements against those I'm reporting (I don't know if that all made sense). AlanS (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to warn a user instead of blocking them then that user should at the very least remove the legal threat. Policy is clear that the block should stand as long as the legal threat does so if we aren't going to block then the threat should not stand. Chillum 15:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Chillum. I'm not seeing in NLT where we're required to redact the threat and reading Wikipedia:NLT#Perceived_legal_threats leads me to believe that in this case a warning w/ an explanation may be the best route. Protonk (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding", this means that if a user is to be unblocked after a legal threat it is only to be done after the threat is not longer outstanding. As long as the threat remains on the page then it is outstanding. I think the user should remove it. Chillum 15:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that's meant to refer to an actual legal threat, e.g. "I'm going to call my lawyer to sue you over thing X" where "outstanding" means the threat itself, not its manifestation on a talk page. I don't have a problem with asking the user to retract the threat, right now I'm trying to make sure they understand that they've made the threat in the first place. Protonk (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × many) I agree it's pretty toothless, and not direct. But looking at the situation itself... what's happening is Copyrights is repeatedly adding content to the lede which deals with an incident aboard an airliner (which resulted in band members being escorted off the airliner). The sources supporting this content are of questionable reliability: one is a Feral Audio podcast (no transcript or timestamp provided), and the other is a Splitsider blog entry. I think even if this isn't blockable as a legal threat, it should be examined as an incivility/intimidation issue. Even if there wasn't evident intimidation that resulted from this action, there is surely disruption, and potential for further disruption down the line should Copyrights find someone who does cave to such statements. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Indefinite ban for Copyrights once lasted 56 years

Given that Copyrights once lasted 56 years has not acknowledged Protonk's statement and question on their talk page I propose an indefinite ban until such time as they do acknowledge that making legal threats is not acceptable. Simple acknowledgement will be sufficient and necessary reason for an unban. AlanS (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. AlanS (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• No. They haven't made an edit since I left the second comment. Let's wait until we're sure they know they've even made a legal threat before trotting out a block. I'm not interested in indeffing someone for a dumb, grandiose statement which didn't even phase the intended recipient. If you find an admin who is interested in doing so, they can block them without a ban discussion like this, as the proposed reason for the ban is basically superfluous to the legal threats policy. Protonk (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Moved to no real opinion. I have no intention of replying to this. I still think a ban thread is pointless, but I won't object anymore. It's not worth it. Protonk (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Organized effort to vandalize pages

Warning to readers: transphobia, hate speech.

Admins and fellow users should be aware of an effort by users on gendertrender.wordpress.com to vandalize pages on WP related to transwomen, specifically Laverne Cox. Today, an IP editor linked to this webpage and many similar anti-trans remarks on Talk:War on Women. Today, an IP editor posted a link to this webpage and made similar anti-trans remarks on Talk:War on Women. Link to page regarding effort: link here. Thank you to ‎Ramendik for bringing this to our attention. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• working link to http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I used DoNotLink, but it works fine for me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Ctrl-F wiki - 0 results. Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Two kinds of pork - On my link or yours? Ctrl-F works fine for me on my link (using FF 31.0). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's direct link: link here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

TheAnon IP is from a US House Representative address. This incident has been covered by mainstream media - see The hill, Raw Story, etc. The issue already has been dealt with as of several days ago but I guess they are back.

The "warning" is a bit of hyperbole, since we'd have to search around history for whatever was written and quickly reverted on Cox article. (As opposed to the rather obvious use of "C*NT" word in various recent ANI and or Jimbo Wales talk page discussions.)

Also, this header is inaccurate since you yourself say its some readers of Gendertrender not necessarily the couple individuals involved in the site. So let's not try to out people without evidence it is them - or at all?? The subject line should be changed.

Finally, re: the "War on Women" talk page, "gendertrender" itself obviously is not RS. However, the site often links to mainstream articles on the topic. Some of the issues they mentioned are gaining more mainstream attention. So at some point editors could bring them up in relevant articles with proper sourcing, if not in the "war on women" article, since the phrase would have to be used in a RS article. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc I have no idea what you mean. A user brought this up. I don't know if this is related to the US House IPs, but there's still a group trying to vandalize WP and that warrants mention on ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all one must wonder about ‎Ramendik's handle and lack of other edits. In any case, you are falsely alleging specific individuals (whoever runs/writes at) that website is doing vandalism. Do you know that those individuals have IP Addresses in Congress or those specific IP Addresses? Accusing individuals of vandalism that has been discussed in news sources is tacky at best and libelous if they decided to claim libel. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The opening comment here says "users", not site-owners (it's the anonymous posters in the comment thread who are openly talking about gaming Wikipedia, not the people who run the site, and not known "specific individuals"). I don't think a mass of anonymous comment-thread people can claim specific libel. It's not "tacky" to warn other editors of threats of vandalism. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned on WP:XX, I think there was a miscommunication. I have struckout and reworded a sentence in the original sentence. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Re "having to wonder": my handle is my real last name; my edits are few but do include a rework of the Sex reassignment therapy article in February 2014, so not the first time I show up on this topic. I never stated anything about any specific persons or IP addresses, my concern is about plans being discussed in comments on the website. I would be honestly surprised if these people were connected to the Congress. Ramendik (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: Before seeing this I noticed your red link had gone blue, read it, realized that that actually might be a real name, searched it and low and behold, it was! Given you had two red links and there are puerile individuals who register with no good in mind, and might want to get away with a misspelling of the phrase "rammin dick" and edit sex-related articles, you can understand my wondering. Probably best to explain the ethnic/linquistic origin of the name on your main page so no one else wonders, especially if you edit in that area. Might save you some headaches! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't use DoNotLink for links on wikipedia, as external links are already marked as no-follow, and DoNotLink is a service which will fail gracelessly when the link rots. Protonk (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Protonk Thanks for the info. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Evergreen, I read though that and found the comments. I wouldn't worry about this too much. The articles they are talking about are high visibility articles and unlikely to suffer any damage. If you are still concerned, create a list of articles they are talking about and then post a notice to the relevant projects. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• EvergreenFir, the thing about the IP is that it's considered a sensitive IP address (it's part of the 143.231.0.0/16 range), and if blocks are applied, WMF will have to be notified and get involved. Thus, Carol's information is very important from an admin's point of view. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Aint that just like Congress don't have to follow rules and no consequences if they don't.
  • Since Wikipedia isn't a government agency, it couldn't care less about blocking Congress. The only thing is that the Wikimedia Foundation might need to be told about this... Epicgenius (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The warning is there because blocks of congress tend to get press (see here for an example) so a little additional forethought is advised before hitting the block button. Note that's for a block on an individual IP address, not the range associated with the house or senate. Protonk (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Well, If you block an IP address in any of the following ranges, you are required to immediately notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee, regardless of whether it's only one IP or a range... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, sorry, @Penwhale. I made the single/range distinction as a way of noting that a block of even one IP in the range which is regularly used will get noticed. A range block (which would be kinda fun, I admit) would cause a shit show. Although it's possible that the press wouldn't distinguish between a single IP and the range, but I don't think we're that lucky. Protonk (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

RE Stephen Yagman article

Serious accusations of personal, legal, and business interests made by IPs regarding each other's editing of this article of now disbarred lawyer, to wit:
a) "(Revisions by 68.119.143.104 & 24.205.53.200 should be undone because they are identifiable to to a litigation antagonist of subject, at law firm of Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi in Glendale, California, who stand to profit from editing entry negatively.)"
b) "(Undid revision 621514535 by 76.170.28.126 (talk) (76.170.28.126 is subject; whois reveals Venice, CA IP address; further manipulation by subject will be reported))"
c) Not sure which, if any, IP is telling the truth.
d) see [56]
NOTE: Also reported at ANI for indefinite page protection.
Quis separabit? 22:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Reporting Martin451 for personal attack.

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

---

Diff [57] request 36hour block Martin451 19:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Martin451: How about going for a nice walk to cool off and we'll call it even? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait, are you reporting yourself? Ansh666 20:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have notified the subject of this thread, just in case they didn't notice it. :) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:55, 27 August 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.

Eyes on Zoe Quinn

Could we get some people watching Zoe Quinn, and possibly even more restrictive protection? It was previously set at admin-only which got people discussing at Talk:Zoe Quinn, but now that it's set to autoconfirmed users we've got a lot of back and forth reverting and serious WP:BLP violations. In particular, User:Crisis has been adding controversial statements based on a porn site and Know Your Meme, Reddit, and Imgur, and even blatantly misrepresenting a source. Woodroar (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

First, thank you for notifying me, second, I'd also like to call attention to the article myself, as anything that seems to be remotely negative about Miss Quinn is being removed citing unreliable sources or allegations, which is interesting seeing as one of the things removed was a blog from Quinn herself alluding to the allegations (TLDR: (Redacted)) Crisis.EXE 04:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think a better solution than full protection would be the blocking of the problem users/issuing them one final warning and noting that if they add material like that into the article again they will be blocked. Let's not shut down the whole castle because a servant did something wrong. Added Note: It appears an admin just issued that final warning so if they revert again...well... Tutelary (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Bear in mind that I'm involved here, so I can't make any administrative actions regarding the article. I won't be blocking anybody here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: this is also at RFPP. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Crisis blocked for 48 hours for BLP violations. Negative material sourced to reddit and a porn site are just beyond the pale and with this edit it is clear that Crisis intends to continue.--v/r - TP 04:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't have blocked in this situation (if I were an admin, but I'm not), but it's on you. Since after the final warning Mr. Stradivarius gave him, he didn't revert again. Essentially a softer version of WP:ROPE (since they aren't blocked yet), where if they did just one more revert...they would've been blocked. But redundant now. Tutelary (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you were an admin, you should have blocked for it. I've revdeleted the porn stuff; I don't know if there's more in the history that needs removing. Thanks for blocking, TParis. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I did a pass back as far as the 16th and revdel'd a mess of stuff, but the links you got were likely the worst of it. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Good block. Kudos for taking swift action. We shouldn't allow that sort of nonsense to continue any longer once the pattern of behaviour was identified. Daniel (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand WP:BLP, you seem quite personally invested in this particular issue too, is it possible that you don't like Zoe Quinn? --94.175.85.144 (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Please assume good faith.72.89.93.110 (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The subject of the article is currently being targeted for harrassment by users of 4chan and reddit, and they're doing their best to spread their campaign to Wikipedia. There's a great deal of back and forth on the Talk page which ranges from the tendentious to the straight up BLP-violating, and the intervention of an uninvolved administrator would be very much appreciated. While much of what is being debated is a content dispute, the rate of unsupportable claim are becoming rapidly unmanagable for most editors. 1.124.49.77 (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• There are a couple of recent IP posts on Talk:Zoe Quinn that need to be revdelled, if someone has a moment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done --j⚛e decker^talk 02:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

In connection to this mess, Phil Fish and Polytron Corporation (Fish' previous company) have just been hacked in relationship to Fish' strong opinion on the Quinn matter. Those pages might see activity similar to the Quinn ones, but nothing yet that I immediately see. Just documenting this in case that needs admin help --MASEM (t) 05:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Phil Fish is lying about that hack. He was talking about a hack to his cloudflare account, which would require a 2 point verification, and unless the "hacker" stole then returned both his laptop and phone, that wouldn't be possible, as he was posting selfies he'd taking with game industry people throughout this "hack" Crisis.EXE 16:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Fresh off a block for BLP violations, and you're committing another BLP violation? Woodroar (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletionist comment Crisis, I'm pretty sure Cloudflare doesn't require 2FA. I don't know whether Phil Fish uses it or not. I can sympathize with the idea that there's a big disconnect between RS about the Quinn saga, and the content of public discourse in her sphere of notability. I.e. there's a lot of info about Quinn that's obviously accurate, subjectively relevant to the interests of readers seeking the info, and trivial to find with a search engine, but that doesn't have high-provenance RS so we have to exclude it from Wikipedia for extremely well justified BLP reasons. That means the article will necessarily fail a back-to-basics, non-wikilawyered version of NPOV, and I can understand it when people react angrily to this even if they haven't worked out the reasoning.

If it were up to me I'd delete the article outright on NPOV grounds--I'd rather say "Wikipedia does not have an article about this person" than "here is a media whitewash", and deletion is probably the most compassionate thing to do for the subject as well. But Wikipedia doesn't work that way. That battle raged for many years and basically converged to where we are now, so we just have to live with an unfixable neutrality deficit in a few articles here and there. There's will always be tons of things wrong with Wikipedia and it's less frustrating to quietly improve the fixable parts, than continue to shed blood for lost causes. In other words, I'd advise giving the Quinn thing a rest for a while, and have a better time contributing to other articles. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Am more a reader than an editor, but wanted to say it's cool to see the encyclopedic integrity of the page being protected with such patience and civility and attentiveness from veteran Wikipedians during this onslaught of attention. I feel like I'm learning more about Wikipedia just by observing. 173.239.141.98 (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

First thing on google. Also, sorry for being minorly off topic here with this Phil Fish issue, but I'm also not buying it because he at one point posted a "smoking gun" screenshot from /v/ board on 4chan claiming to be posted by "the leader of /V/" (note the never used capital) "and all 4chan" (this would be one Christopher Poole asking people to hack Phil's website.

Secondly, the file containing the employees personal details, as well as the companies financial information was 1.5 gigabytes in size. It was uploaded 15 seconds after the site was hacked.

So after the ‘hackers’ gained access to Polytron’s website they were able to locate that information and download it all, compress it into a 1.5 gig file and then upload it to the public. All in 15 seconds.

So either someone is using a military supercomputer with access to the best internet in the world to hack Polytron, or Phil Fish or one of his associates with access to that information pretended to hack themselves.

I'm not violating BLP here, I'm using basic fact. If anyone hacked Phil Fish, the likely suspect is Phil Fish Crisis.EXE 08:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

And yes, I'm staying out of article space for this entire incident Crisis.EXE 08:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Our BLP policy applies to Talk pages as well as articles. Comments and accusations like these about a living person are unacceptable. Woodroar (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@TParis, PhilKnight, Drmies, and The Bushranger: Sorry to ping everyone, but you were all working with User:Crisis prior to and during his block. Woodroar (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are pinging all these administrators because they favor the outcome that you seek, and sided on your side. This may be a violation of canvassing. Tutelary (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I pinged all of the admins involved on his page. It's common to let admins know if someone is continuing the behavior that got them blocked. In this case, accusing someone of lying or hacking is a blatant BLP violation. Woodroar (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

IMO the Phil Fish possible hack shouldn't be mentioned in article space for now, as it's something that could get the actual culprit prison time Crisis.EXE 09:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We're not here to uncover the truth, we're here to reflect the reliable sources. That's all that there is to it. Euchrid (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Crisis, yes, I know that Cloudflare has 2FA available—what I said is that I don't think they require anyone to use it. It's an option people can choose to use and I don't know if Phil Fish chose to use it. Gmail is the same way: it supports 2FA for those who want it, but almost everyone just uses a password. I don't care enough about the Quinn story to follow the details but I have a basic understanding from looking at some search hits a couple nights ago, and I understand why people on the internet want to talk about it and perform their own analyses and investigations, which is fine. All we're telling you here is that Wikipedia (including talk space) isn't the place for that. Consider using Reddit or 4chan or your own blog or wherever else they discuss those things. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been pointed out by people that have looked in a white-hat hacker manner at Fish's stuff that it is legit. Cloudflare was not the hosting site, it was a relay site, and it was the hosting site that was hacked. The people that took control did everything silently, prepping the 1.5g file to other sites after assuring control so that they could do maximum damage. Given that Fish took the side of Quinn in this, there's very little doubt this was a prank, and it would be a BLP issue to assume otherwise until proven by RS wrong. --MASEM (t) 03:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to put Tim Schafer and his studio Double Fine Productions on the possible watch list too. Tied all this is a very loud anti-feminine-in-video-gaming stance that's tied with Anita Sarkeesian who has been trying to fairly point out the misogyny in video game entertainment. She released another video today (cue the anti group) and Tim Schafer publicly put his strong support behind the video, so like with Quinn and Fish, he could be next. Nothing yet, but I am just preparing for possible admin action. --MASEM (t) 03:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, with the exception of Fish, these sort of vandals are unlikely to go after a male target, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere.Euchrid (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Admins are needed to monitor the article and ensure (with blocks if necessary) that normal standards apply. Since Mr. Stradivarius is active (and self-declared as involved above), it would make sense for this discussion to request that Mr.S take administrative action where necessary despite WP:INVOLVED. It would be hard for a totally uninvolved admin to find time to work out what's going on, and this noticeboard can review any disputed actions taken by Mr.S. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I'm not so sure that me taking admin actions in this subject area would be a good idea. For the obvious vandals, admins don't need to be well-versed in the background of the controversy, so I think blocks would likely be swift even if I wasn't the one to make them. And for edits that fall into greyer areas, blocks etc. from me would be inflammatory. It's probably best to do as much of this as possible by reasoned discussion and explanation of our policies, and for any blocks to come from uninvolved admins, lest we want to invoke the wrath of Teh Interwebs. While we have the tools to fend off quite large amounts of vandalism, it would require work from regular editors, and if we take a more reasonable approach we can get by with doing less work, and we might even manage to convert some of the new users into regular editors. Also, I have seen a few uninvolved admins at the Zoe Quinn article already, so my admin buttons may be redundant there anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Odd software behaviour at Talk:War in Donbass

At this talk page, signatures are not working properly, nor are template substitutions, nor section headings. You'll notice towards the bottom that lots of posts have four tildes instead of a proper signature. I can't figure out why this is, so I thought I'd ask here to see if it was some kind of software glitch. RGloucester — ☎ 02:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's the good news: I figured out what was causing the problem.

The bad news was that I ended up "signing" all of the failed signatures as a result. Future signatures should be fine, but users will have to manually re-sign their comments to get their signature to show up. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. It is appreciated. I'll work on cleaning up the remaining signatures. RGloucester — ☎ 02:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of an 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.

---

Hi, I recently created an account to create an article called 2014 Sunni-Shia conflict. I used many reliable sources including a couple of NYT sources. The article is about recent conflicts and does not duplicate any article. The article got deleted. Could someone please restore the article. Thanks--Seesvenue23 (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW here is what @NawlinWiki: (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: Shia–Sunni relations). I am posting this so that others wont have to go looking for it. MarnetteD|Talk 02:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

While there have been plenty of areas of Sunni-Shia conflict this year, there is not anything called "the Sunni-Shia conflict of 2014". The various places in the world where there are such conflicts are all discussed in Shia-Sunni relations and in articles on specific countries. Feel free to add to those. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I have seen Shia–Sunni relations, and my article didn't duplicate that article.--Seesvenue23 (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@NawlinWiki: Could you please restore the article for sometime at least. I need to retrieve my work done there.--Seesvenue23 (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, just so you know, the stuff I put in are nowhere to be found on Wikipedia.--Seesvenue23 (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• I've moved the deleted text to your userspace at User:Seesvenue23/2014 Sunni-Shia conflict. Another comment on the article is that it's a collection of news stories that are only related in that they are Shias killing Sunnis, or vice versa, at different places in the world. See WP:NOTNEWS. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@NawlinWiki: Thanks. Actually it's a collection of news stories that are only related in that they are Shias killing Sunnis, or vice versa, in Iraq. That being said, is it ok if I create 2014 Sunni-Shia conflict in Iraq? Need your advice, Thanks again.--Seesvenue23 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be duplicative of Iraqi insurgency (2011–present). Also, we can continue this discussion on my talk page if you want - no need for it to be here. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As you wish. I thought you were gone for the day, and as such I came here. I didn't know where to go.--Seesvenue23 (talk) 03:13, 28 August 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.

Someone trying to save us from the NSA

Drprinceton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently blocked for personal attacks and harassment. He's been trying to create a page about an algorithm that completely revolutionizes math or something, and refuses to present WP:RSs. He's complained on his talk page repeatedly about censorship, and not pulled back on it any. He has (somewhat) improved when it was he was told to quit making personal attacks, but his most recent post is a large conspiracy theory about the NSA controlling at a minimum mathematical academia, Reddit, and even Bitcoin; all meant to try to get around WP:RS. I left a message to try to call him to improve, but come on. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, telling someone to calm down usually has the opposite effect. No doubt we have an essay on that somewhere. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• The rambling vehemence his edits, and their scope (Nostradamus, esoteric math, vast government conspiracies), is at least suggestive of his suffering from a paranoid delusional disorder of some kind. If that's the case, he's unlikely to be able to contribute to Wikipedia constructively, and Wikipedia isn't a place for him to get therapy. There's plenty of material on his talk page detailing where he can find out about how to contribute properly to Wikipedia, and the block gives him time to absorb that; it's reasonable for us to assume that he will, if he can. There's little additional mileage to be had in engaging further with him: I'd leave him be for the duration of his block. If, after that, he returns to the same obviously inappropriate material, there's little alternative to blocking him indefinitely. While he might be unwell, from our perspective there's nothing to distinguish "won't contribute properly" and "can't contribute properly". 87.113.48.152 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Ok, seriously. Did I miss a memo? This editor is blocked. Why has it become relatively common practice to bring conduct on a blocked user's talk page to AN/I as though it were some matter that actually merits concern. Barring some actual reason to care (btw: accusing someone of censorship on wikipedia is incorrect and usually laughable, not a personal attack) we should simply ignore what's posted on the talk page between now and when the ban expires. If they want to post an unblock request, that's fine. If not, the only people affected are those who choose to pay attention to that talk page and the blocked editor in question. Protonk (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice that he's only blocked until the 30th. It'd be easier to waste time pressing for a WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE block now than waiting for his block to expire and watch him post his screeds in article space. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Pages worth of tin-foil hat material and continued personal attacks should qualify as WP:ROPE, even if they're on his talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Calling people "twits" is a personal attack under the letter of the policy, but I'm really uneasy applying a policy which (in theory) gives us a pretty strong bright line rule on blocking to phrases like "clueless mods" (which is not really personal as it isn't directed at a particular person) or accusations of censorship. The latter especially worries me, since it has become common practice to shoehorn in behavior that we would at one time describe as "being a dick" into NPA because NPA is policy and "don't be a dick" is not. Every time I see threads which conflate the two or do so similarly with "harassment" (i.e. "editor X accused me of harassment but I'm not harassing them so that's a personal attack") or AGF ("they said I was acting in bad faith so they failed to assume good faith") etc. my eye twitches a little. Because we've replaced reasonableness with a simulacra of reasonableness constructed from twine, spit and a half dozen unrelated policies and guidelines. In most cases it works out "okay" because the underlying issue is pretty unambiguous. In this case I'll agree, this is likely not an editor who is going to succeed here and if I had to place money on it, I wouldn't bet on them figuring out how to succeed here. But for nearly any other case it robs us of the ability to talk about contentious issues like human beings. For an example of this, look at the complete shit show over at RFAR where similarly bright line policies come into direct conflict. Very few people party to that discussion are "wikilawyering" (which is our normal worry for policy interpretation like this), they're all holding strong, relatively self-consistent positions which happen to come into conflict with those of other editors. But we have no vocabulary to resolve it. We've bled it out of our speech over the past 10 years by extending or interpreting individually unambiguous and helpful policies until they overlap and clash. Once that happens we have no means to resolve it except by writing an additional policy to cover the edge case at which point we hammer that out to cover a half dozen other cases because nothing we've written or done relates to actual human behavior. Is it within policy to ban this guy for the crazy stuff they've said on their talk page while blocked? Probably. Is it a good idea to watch their talk page while they're blocked for colorable content? No, absolutely not. Because they can't impact anyone while blocked. Literally no one. Even the most vicious personal attack known to man made on that page will be read by Drprinceton and whoever chooses to read it (which is almost literally no one in the universe). That's not to say that anything is fair game for blocked users, but I would like to introduce a little bit of human proportionality to the mix. Because the next time we have this discussion it won't be so clear cut. Or the next time, or the next time. When those times roll around, I'd like for us to be able to talk about whether or not the editor in question is making things easy or hard to collaborate with them. And I'd generally prefer they be able to materially participate in the discussion. Protonk (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, a lot of that has absolutely nothing to do with this case. I'm sure it it's perfectly relevant to other cases that I'm not exactly aware of, but it is off-topic to this one. Was all that really necessary? Trimmed down to what is actually relevant, we're pretty much left with 1) 'some of his statements aren't personal attacks' (acknowledging that some are), 2) "In this case I'll agree, this is likely not an editor who is going to succeed here and if I had to place money on it, I wouldn't bet on them figuring out how to succeed here," and 3) 'why should anyone be paying attention to his page while he's blocked?'

1) After being warned by multiple editors, Drprinceton continued to make personal attacks, calling those involved "nazi censoring worms". This was before the block. Even if he had not called anyone names, the sheer zealotry and refusal to heed any advice are signs that we don't need an editor.

2) After slightly improving on the personal attacks after the block, he's turned to tin-foil hat conspiracy theories that academia, Reddit, and possibly Wikipedia are controlled by the NSA, and he's dead set that that's the only possible reason why he could've been blocked. Barring some indication that he's found his medication, we don't need him here, but his block is temporary.

3) As I said before, it will be less work for more people if his rants were interpreted as WP:ROPE and used to justify making his block indefinite.

WP:AGF and WP:Assume clue, and stick to the subject at hand, please, instead of fussing about completely unrelated matters. At no point did I suggest that we indef block and revoke talk page access for otherwise apparently sane editors blocked over things like failing to keep track of how many reverts they made, going a touch far in trying to hold someone accountable, being particularly passionate about a link, making frustrated outbursts, or even failing to recognize their inherent biases. I am simply saying that we've got a user who keeps providing more and more evidence that he's only going to be trouble once (if) his block lifts. It doesn't matter if that evidence is on his talk page or in article space: it's on the site. There's a rather big difference between the typical frustrated blame-shifting that the most reasonable editors can make when they get blocked for a mistake. I can understand not revoking talk page access for such individuals and not holding it against them in the long run. This guy going much further, and it's not that he's "misbehaving while blocked" or anything like that, it's that he's making it clear that he does not assume good faith with the concept of academia itself, much less a site that merely summarizes academic works, and that he only intends to use this site to "prove" "truths" unrecognized as such (for a reason).

It's really this simple: this guy is not competent to edit here, he's not here to build an encyclopedia or otherwise aid the community, he's here to push his views on a fringe topic, crusading against anyone who tries to stop him. It is unreasonable to imagine that he's going to get better, there is no plausible harm to come from indeffing him, there is at least nuisance involved if we let his block expire. It does not matter if the evidence for this is on his talk page, in article space, or anywhere else on the site, because it is on the site and so it isn't outing. If you don't want to change his block, don't. But please, quit playing devil's advocate for strawmen that don't even resemble Drprinceton. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Recommend an Indef Block

It is apparent that this editor is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. There is some competence issue, but it isn't clear what that issue is. His posts are repetitive and too long, difficult to read. If he had a track record, I would recommend a Site Ban. As it is, I only recommend an indefinite block. Indefinite is not infinite, but it will be infinite if he doesn't become competent. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and counter rant in parent section. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Robert McClenon's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE. This user's actions show him or her incapable at this time of contributing usefully, and the reason isn't any of our business. --NellieBly (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• And as he is not only continuing to rant but is now socking (as User:Primealgorith) after TPA was revoked by the panda, blocked indef, no TPA. I haven't revoked TPA on the sock - yet - but given his progress so far, best to keep an eye on that perhaps. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

refferences

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.

---

some refferences(like in Newar caste system) are unbelievable,unreliable and based on misunderstanding factors.Baoshr (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an issue for this noticeboard. What you want to do in this case is to open a discussion on the article talk page that explains your concerns with the references, and how you believe the issue should be addressed, so that discussion can take place to reach a consensus on what, if anything, should be done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:14, 28 August 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.

Email canvassing

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:Krish8 is canvassing and abusing Wikipedia email. I don't know this user and never talked to him, I have got 4 emails from him this month, 3 in last 3 days. They are mentioning this article. I think they are sending such emails to many other users too. --Tito☸Dutta 12:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Since this is a sockpuppet account, I don't think there would be any harm in removing access to the e-mail function. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:06, 28 August 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.

Alleged Censorship of User Page

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

---

Attempted Direct Resolution with User: I attempted to resolve this issue through RHaworth's user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RHaworth, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth#Refusal_to_Cite_Wikipedia_Policy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth#Censorship

This administrator has a picture on his userpage which seems to promote or idolize the abuse of new members: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RHaworth#mediaviewer/File:Charlie_210.jpg

Change in Question RHaworth made this change to my user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JaysonSunshine&diff=623081356&oldid=623081254

I believe he made this change because he didn't like the specific content, which is a form of censorship.

Nature of Content Deleted The fundamental conclusion of my article: "As the modern world continues to move away from the less sound methodology of relying on our ancestors, i.e. those human being who were simply born before us without access to the tremendous collection of accumulated scientific knowledge, those that believe in and understand the scientific process need to continue to research socially significant issues and have the ethical courage to present the conclusions reached to an often less-informed general public that may often attack those findings and condemn the scientific approach to existence."

Wikipedia cannot exist without a general interest in knowledge and an acceptance of diversity in user perspectives.

Usage of User Space "Besides communication, other legitimate uses of user space include (but are not limited to): ... Personal writings suitable within the Wikipedia community Non-article Wikipedia material such as reasonable Wikipedia humor, essays and perspectives, personal philosophy, comments on Wikipedia matters, Disclosures of important matters such as absences or self-corrections that you would like other editors to know about, etc."

My article is an "essay and perspective". Further it is a deep part of my "personal philosophy" of scientific investigation and freedom from censorship. These goals align with the goals of Wikipedia. The primary source from my article is linked on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy

"Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#Ownership_and_editing_of_user_pages

"(Purely content policies such as original research, neutral point of view etc., generally do not, unless the material is moved into mainspace.)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#Ownership_and_editing_of_user_pages

Editing of User Pages This change was made shorty after this conflict arose: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:User_pages&diff=622125546&oldid=618867237 I have requested he revert the changes but he has not complied.

RHaworth did not notify me of his proposed changed to my user page. RHaworth has not claimed immediate action was needed or why immediate action would have been needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages "Wikipedia policies concerning the content of pages can and generally do apply to user pages, and users must observe these policies. Users believed to be in violation of these policies should first be advised on their talk page using Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. If you believe that your user page does not violate our guideline, please leave a note on this page. Alternatively you may add {{Db-userreq}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, or you can simply edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's user page guideline. Thank you. when immediate action is not otherwise necessary."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to)."

RHaworth's defense of removal of content Original reasons given along with edits lack any policy justification, including 1 - "freeloading", 2 - "this is not the place to publish your essays", and 3 - " Wikpedia is not for essays". [58] Later offered reasons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR It does appear this page target user pages. There is not a single usage of 'user' in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:U5#U5. It is not true that I have "made few or no edits outside of namespace". I have ~92 edits since 2009. One possible metric for what constitutes a 'few' edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics. 732,500,848 total edits, 22,299,072 users, giving an average number of edits per user at 32.8. Another possibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_frequency. Of those users in 2008 that had at least one edit, 2021613 users, only 72119 had more than 100 edits, or 3.6%. Therefore, it seems 92 edits is much more than a few, and the cited policy does not apply.

Desired remedy: 1 - Removal of RHaworth's edits to my user page. 2 - Review of RHaworth's past behavior for any patterns of similar abuse (There are several user accounts with insulting variants of RHaworth's user name, which may indicate these people were merely being immature, or perhaps that they felt mistreated by RHaworth: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=Rhaworth&group=&limit=50, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=RHaworth&group=&limit=50) 3 - Consideration of whether or not RHwaroth's behavior in this incident--censorship of a user page, lack of notification of user of proposed changed to user page, original justification failing to include citations to Wikipedia policy, proposed justifications which appears to be post hoc and non-applicable for behavior--deviate sufficiently from Wikipedia policy to allow user to continue being an administrator on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaysonSunshine (talk • contribs) 01:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Your essay has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Support removal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree generally with Neil, but the full protection of your user page I think to be a bit much. No one else but you and him edited that page, and it is clear that he protected it to preserve his version. KonveyorBelt 01:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that both parties to this dispute should calm down. First, User:JaysonSunshine should have read the boomerang essay before complaining about the removal of a non-Wikipedia-related essay from his user page. The philosophical (possibly libertarian) worldview of the OP does not make the essay appropriate for Wikipedia, even if he thinks that it does. Also, the "censorship" label was, like most uses of the word "censorship" in Wikipedia, just wrong. For every valid use of the word "censorship" in Wikipedia, there must be five or ten misuses of the word in content disputes. Second, User:RHaworth used poor administrative judgment in imposing full protection on a user's own user page, because, as an edit warrior, he had become involved. Both editors were close to 3RR, but then one of them chose to use an admin tool rather than to seek dispute resolution. Both of you: Back off and stop edit warring. The essay was indeed provocative and out of line, but using page protection by an edit warrior who was an admin was poor judgment. (I haven't reviewed his record as an administrator, and won't call it abuse, only poor judgment.) Remove the page protection but do not restore the essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, JaysonSunshine, learn to sign your posts. Unsigned claims of “censorship” have even less credibility than signed claims of “censorship”. An unsigned boomerang, however, is still an Australian throwing weapon that still finds its thrower. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Using an admin tool is not the right way to avoid breaching 3RR. You made a mistake (a signed boomerang, maybe). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate content on a user page is still inappropriate content. If a user put up an ad on their user page and kept on doing it after an admin took it off are you saying the same admin can't lock the page? Seems like a pretty straightforward case to me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The protection was reasonable under WP:NOT. The alternative would be to block. Chillum 02:52, 28 August 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.

OP Isn't Banned (yet)

The OP has been indeffed. While the page protection was reasonable, the page protection by the admin who was reverting the essay was poor judgment. Also, now, the user's user page states that he has been banned. I see no discussion here of a community ban, and he has not been referred to the ArbCom, and I have no evidence of a ban by User:Jimbo Wales or a ban by the WMF. I think that the notice on the user page should be a block notice rather than a ban notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Poor judgement in your opinion. Please see my comment to you above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of judgement on protection, it's true that the user is blocked, not banned. I've altered the notice (pray I do not alter it any further). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The editor should have been indefinitely blocked per the WP:Child protect policy alone. Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

And I'm sure that's why he got WP:ArbCom blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wolf Parade - both versions

Hi,

We appear to have two identical versions of the Wolf Parade article in existance,

Was WP:Speedy but we now have an IP removing the tags from the newest version, unfortunatley as I cant prove its the author I feel the need to be cautious over reverting the removal as vandalism. Can someone pop over have a look and delete the one created earlier today thats word for word copy of the original. Amortias (T)(C) 20:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is the second copy? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes good question, where? In Amortias' imagination. --Hooter Jack (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This is wierd - History of Wolf Parade and History of the other Wolf Parade. Ahhh, got it. The second link is using special characters for the e. Ravensfire (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As above, also i think Hooter Jack is a bit miffed about me requesting WP:Speedy on a page he recreated a matter of seconds after it was speedied with just a single line saying it shouldnt be deleted. Im not sure it hits WP:NPA just yet but please keep inappropriate comments off Wikipeida. Amortias (T)(C) 20:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The first version is at Wolf Parade. The second version is at Wolf Paradе. (Note that this second version is technically at [[Wolf Parad%D0%B5]]. The use of this hidden character must be assumed to be a sure sign of vandalism, as does the number of WP:SPA accounts popping up to protect it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wolf Paradе (the one with the mystery character) has been deleted. Now we just need to deal with the vandals who created and supported it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Think that'l be an admin job as the revision history has been removed as well. Amortias (T)(C) 20:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

They appear to be on it. Situation managed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Three vandal accounts and an IP blocked, all User:Evlekis socks. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

In which case i'll go sit by the edit filter and wait for him to spam it with NawlinWiki and Amortias are insert colorful expletives again. Amortias (T)(C) 20:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe you and NewlinWiki know exactly what you both are. --No Spam Please (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

And a block for the above please. Amortias (T)(C) 21:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

They blocked that sock faster than you can sing, "Spam, Spam, Wonderful Spam..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

IP editor continuing to blank and redirect pages

This IP contributor is continuing to blank and redirect pages and I'm not sure exactly where to go to address this. I asked them about this and they gave me this single line reply of I redirect these pages because these sharks are no longer valid species. which I think is not a good reason to be blanking and redirecting pages. I reverted some but then they reverted me and I didn't want to revert anymore so I thought I would come here. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Given the complete lack of talk page participation and meaningful edits I am so tempted to hit mass rollback--but I'd rather hear from a couple of shark experts first. Kelapstick, you finally finished watching Sharknado II, right? Please weigh in. Tutelary, consider dropping a note on the talk page of the project. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if the user is correct, which they appear to be, (and Compagno is the authority on all things shark) then the correct approach is a merge. For example Cephaloscyllium circulopullum has more information than Sarawak pygmy swellshark.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC).

Cartman810

Cartman810 has been warned on his talk page (and on his previous talk page numerous times to not add copy/pasted content or unsourced content to articles. User is having difficulty understanding this, as indicated by his continued submission of unsourced content and copy/pasted synopses after a final warning. I generally believe that they are here to be constructive, but they have to stop the lazy editing. Examples that follow are a few of the user's contributions, followed by the either directly copy/pasted or closely paraphrased content.

"The trio discover a hidden portal to the inside of Abercrombie's head"

"The trio discover a portal to the inside of Abercrombie's head."

"The kids find a mysterious island in the middle of the school swimming pool."

"The kids discover a mysterious island in the middle of the school swimming pool."

"It's April Fools day and Mitchell is pranking in overdrive."

"It is April Fools' Day and Mitchell is pranking in overdrive."

"Mitchell is bitten by a sick deputy head and every time the school bell rings, he turns into a strict were teacher."

"Mitchell is bitten by the sick deputy head and turns into a strict were-teacher every time the school bell rings"

"Becky's new health snacks provoke a fairy tale figure."

"Becky's healthy snacks provoke an evil fairy tale figure set on making children's teeth rot."

"Becky and Templeton are dragged back to Victorian times."

"When Becky and Templeton are sucked back to Victorian times, Mitchell and Mr Balding try to rescue them."

"When Templeton gets school security guard, he goes mad with power."

"When Templeton becomes security monitor and goes mad with this incredible, all-seeing power, the very existence of Strange Hill is threatened."

These are just a few examples from the user's most recent edit. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Cartman810 (Myself)

I am Cartman810. I'm adding this on my behalf that I am NOT copy/pasting content from websites. I am not saying this in a rude way but you can't go around accusing me. I try my best to put things into my own words. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartman810 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Cartman: This is NOT your own work. Whether you use the "copy-paste" function, or you go through the trouble to press all the letter keys individually on your keyboard: when you copy the work of others, that's not allowed at all. The fact that you actually typed out all of your copying doesn't mean you didn't copy it. Also, the fact that you make inconsequential changes also doesn't mean you didn't copy it. Here's what you should do if you don't want to be accused of copying

1) Read the entire source text.

2) Think about what it means. Internalize it. Try to understand what the author is saying.

3) Put away the source text. Don't look at it (at least for a few minutes). Using your own understanding, summarize or describe what the author is saying in your own words. Check back to make sure you capture the sense of the original source, but your writing should use different words, sentence structure, organization, etc. It should be your own work.

Try that next time. Because what you are doing is plagiarism/copyright violation, and at Wikipedia, we don't do that. --Jayron32 17:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Cartman810, your good intentions are not good enough. Your wording is too close to the original. Way too close! You are violating the rule against close paraphrasing. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Cartman810, another thing you might consider, is that episode synopses are not limited to one sentence. A quality episode synopsis is between 100-200 words (see WP:TVPLOT). If you were to watch the episode, then summarize the plot on your own, with a beginning, middle, and end, you would probably have more success. If what you're doing is sitting down with the episode loglines in front of you and trying to figure out how to say it differently, you are always going to have this problem. And if you're reading full episode synopses like the ones here and are trying to paraphrase them, again, you're going to have problems. In short, it's very difficult to try to reword something that's already written. For example, a while back I noticed that Barbie: Life in the Dreamhouse contained a lot of lifted one-sentence loglines, which I found impossible to phrase differently because I don't watch the series. I had to watch a ton of those episodes (and believe me, I wasn't happy about that) to be able to write summaries that were fundamentally different. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, Cyphoid, you are devoted. I couldn't even get through a fourth of an episode of Barbie or many of these terrible shows just to form proper ep summaries. You are a heartier editor than I will ever be despite my time here. Nate • (chatter) 23:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Mrschimpf Ha, well to be candid, I didn't get through the entire series. I will probably have to finish the job someday though. Goddammit. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I do watch Strange Hill High. I do try and reword it from the episode. But thank you for the advice. Cartman810 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Handy tip - most listings magazines and sites do not have episode summaries, but "hooks", designed to draw the reader to watch the episode (and not act as a spoiler). We want a proper episode summary, including the outcome of the plot.

• Hook: Fred and Ginger go sunbathing but forget their sun-cream with hilarious results."
• Episode summary: Fred and Ginger go sunbathing but forget their sun-cream. Fred tries to use olive oil, and Ginger tries to use mayonnaise. They are followed home by several stray cats who eat their fish supper. One of the cats proves to be Lady Mitford's pet and they are given a handsome reward!

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC).

Harassment and troublemaking by ClaphamSix

A new account, ClaphamSix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has popped up to continue the same disruptive behavior and harassment that Festal82 and his sockpuppets carried out before his ban. The CheckUser admin on the SPI page believes the account to be another sock, but this is awaiting a behavioral evaluation by the clerks. In the meantime, this user is flooding the metamodernism talk page with as many alarmist comments and page-long screeds as they can, obviously to give a false impression of conflict--where there has otherwise been considered, calm discussion and consensus since Festal's ban--and to obscure the relevant discussions that have been taking place there. His tactic seems to be to drag in other editors from the WikiProject Philosophy page that may not be fully aware of the history and frustrations we have all experienced on this page with Festal's POV pushing, to cause chaos and bring into question the integrity of the discussion there.

The user has continued Festal's malicious, unfounded and serious misrepresentations of mine and other editors' edits (see previous ANI incident here), trying to falsely Out me by bizarrely claiming he knows my IP (which he obviously doesn't), from which he's spreading the lie that I live in a tiny village I have never even heard of (!?!), seemingly to try to discredit my transparently consensus-led edit history, and slinging a vast quantity of mud in the hope that some will stick. He's also dragged the CheckUser admin into the discussion, being seriously condescending about their actions, which is why they advised I take this matter here and request another admin look at this, to avoid a WP:INVOLVED conflict. As his latest posts seriously break just about every rule with regards to WP:HARASS, WP:OUTING and WP:NOTHERE, please could someone help here with a swift block, and save us all the headache of having to constantly defend against the barrage of lies he keeps spreading. Esmeme (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

For information, there has been a long dispute over the metamodernism article. It has ebbed to and fro with at least two socking users getting themselves indef blocked, and it is currently focused on two antagonists - Esmeme who posted here and ClaphamSix about whom they are complaining. Both are WP:SPA editors to date and inexperienced in Wikipedia's habitual ways. While one involved Admin suspects ClaphamSix is a sock, this user's very first edit was an appeal to the philosophy WikiProject to review the situation, so I think that suggestions of WP:NOTHERE need to be treated with caution.

Although pots and kettles spring strongly to mind, especially with respect to harrassment and outing, both editors have so far been constructive in helping me work towards a resolution at Talk:Metamodernism and I'd suggest that this ANI is a bit premature. IMHO the less smoke and heat the better. I'd personally rather wait and see how things develop for a while. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Steelpillow, please take at look at Festal82's edit history, and his repeated baseless attempts to smear my name and accuse me of being various people associated with the article (which I am plainly not). There is no doubt in my mind that this new account is the same user, and his tactics are the same. The repeated, blatant violation of WP:OUTING is surely more than enough to warrant a ban. The discussion there has not so much "ebbed and flowed"--it has simply been Festal's sockpuppets trying to give the illusion of conflict in order to push a POV that only he holds. On the other hand, I believe you will see that my own behavior here has been nothing but exemplary (and that I did not make the edits he accuses me of), and I am now fairly familiar with wiki's processes, having had to deal with Festal's devious edits for many months. It should be clear that none of the banned sock accounts have any relation to me or the neutral POV I have tried to uphold. From your comments, it worries me that some of his mudslinging is having the desired effect, so I urge you to investigate every one of his statements, and I think you will find the majority turn out to be deviously misrepresenting the facts. We all welcome your input and that of other editors on the page, but these abusive and mudslinging sockpuppets need to be clamped down on. Esmeme (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to reassure you, I am not looking at unsubstantiated mudslinging as anything except just that. I have seen no serious suggestion that any of the socks was you. As yet, the suspicion that ClaphamSix is a sock of Festal82 remains unconfirmed, I am just not prepared to second-guess the outcome. Hope this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Steelpillow, that's twice on ANI that you've made a similar statement on awaiting the SPI outcome: please don't as it's not helpful. WP:DUCK is often sufficient the panda ₯’ 09:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Steelpillow, I appreciate your position entirely. What we can say at this stage is that the admin has stated that ClaphamSix is somebody's sock. Esmeme (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to add that the user is back with more lies, bizarre WP:OUTING claims and disruptive screeds [59]. Please can someone take a look at this urgently, as the account is obscuring and severely disrupting the genuine efforts of editors there. Thanks. Esmeme (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, please could an admin take at look at the constant WP:HARRASS and false WP:OUTING I am having to endure on Talk:Metamodernism‎. This needs to be put a stop to, as it is severely disrupting any useful discussion on the page, and is personally very unpleasant to have to constantly defend against. Esmeme (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Claiming they know your IP is not outing. the panda ₯’ 00:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, sorry DangerousPanda, but isn't it an attempt at outing in order to try to intimidate/discredit me? Making continual false claims (they clearly don't know my IP, as I live nowhere near the locations they claim I do) is surely WP:HARRASS? One day the user said they "know" I live in a tiny village in Europe, the next they say that I'm someone from LA. It's tiresome and impossible to reason with, combined with their complete lies about my edits and those of other editors, and their outright denial of the previous sockpuppetry. Esmeme (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, according to some website somewhere, I'm about 10 years older than I really am with a goatee, and live on the English side of my city (the shame!) The old saying "the best way to confirm a rumour is to officially deny it" holds play. When someone says "I know who you are", say "excellent, I know who I am too!" If you're concerned that they really do know where you live and you see it as a threat, call the cops. Otherwise, if they want to randomly throw darts at a globe, denying simply allows them to get closer to the real place. It's childish, uncivil, and if used wrong can be attempted intimidation, but not outing the panda ₯’ 09:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the advice. There's no concern that they really do know where I live, but it's more a frustration that they are continually trying to undermine my edits, misrepresenting my every comment and trying to intimidate me and other editors there. Randomly throwing darts, indeed. Just there's a lot of darts in the air at the moment, and it makes for a very messy talk page. Esmeme (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like Esmeme has uncovered some hoaxing or some egregious self-promotion - probably the former - and is being harassed. Could someone with a block button please take a careful look? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I just restored this thread from auto-archiving. It's not resolved yet but under the scrutiny of User:DeltaQuad, whose last commented at SPI: "I am still keeping an eye on this case, I make it a personal policy not to mix my CU hat with my admin hat unless absolutely required. I'll talk to a clerk about the case hopefully in the next 48 hours and we will go from there. 00:05, 28 August 2014."
Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb

I edited the page George Waters (disambiguation) ([60]) with the edit summaries 'tidy per MOS:D' and '+1'. It was a very small tidy, the knd that I make a dozen of a day without issues, and following the guidelines for disambiguation pages. Joefromrnb then made the following edit undoing mine, with an edit summary ([61]): don't red-link personal names (unless, of course, you're a member of the disambiguation cabal, in which case all rules, up to and including BLP, cease to apply); the level of arrogance is simply staggering. The blp he referred to was actually a long-dead MP. He then undid another part of my edit ([62]) with the edit summary that's quite a misleading redirect and then another part of it with the edit summary WP:LINKSTYLE ([63]). I then thought that if I linked in my edit summaries directly to the policies I was following, Joe would understand, so made this edit [64] with the edit summary Please see MOS:DABPRIMARY; as this isn't an article, the guidelines are different, this [65] with Please see WP:DABREDIR and then this after I had read the comment about how the [my] level of arrogance is staggering ([66]) with edit summary: Instead of leaving rude edit summaries, please read MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. This was Joe's response, undoing all my edits with the edit summary don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't r [67]. I was quite upset and looked at Joe's talk page to see if I should continue a discussion, but User talk:Joefromrandb showed lots of messages about his previous edit warring. I decided to completely leave the page and leave a message at WP: Wikiproject Disambiguation for a third person to look it over. Unfortunately the discussion did not go well: [68]. User:DuncanHill saw the message and restored the deleted entry: [69] with edit summary: legitimate redlink per " there clearly should be a corresponding article AND there is an existing article to link to (e.g., a blue link) elsewhere on the page". BLP does NOT apply as long dead. Joe deleted it with [70] an edit summary: (forum-shopping to the walled garden of a Wikiproject does not in any way override site-wide consensus; rv meatpuppetry). Joe was determined to remove the MP's link, but DuncanHill created George Waters (MP), edit summaries such as [incoming red links removed, this is now not only in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines, but much more importantly, with Wikiproject Disambiguation ([71]) aren't helpful.

The edit warring continued onto Mallow (UK Parliament constituency), where George Waters (MP) was listed [72], going beyond WP:3RR.

It also went onto George Waters, where Joe had seen that I had added a 'sections' and 'morecat' tag. See the page's edit history: [73]. I didn't get involved or respond, but DuncanHill reverted when Joe persistently removed my tags. In Joe's edit summaries, he described my edits as 'trolling' and wrote 'But it doesn't need the same fucking tag twice' (it doesn't appear that it did have the same tag twice.

It doesn't look good for WP when editors behave like this. Personally, I found it really upsetting. Boleyn (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Small point - 'twas I who created the unreferenced sub-stub George Waters (MP) - it does now have some refs, and as ever it would benefit from expansion and improvement from knowledgeable editors. Your contributions are welcome. DuncanHill (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Sorry @DuncanHill:, I've corrected that. Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• FWIW, I agree with Joe. No article needs to be tagged twice for the same thing- No categories....William 13:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

And that excuses his edit-warring and snarky edit summaries? pbp 23:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: The other tag was hidden in the wrong place. And there was a hell of a lot more than just that one tag involved. DuncanHill (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong, and another Mr Wiki Pro 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.

---

Ryulong (talk · contribs · count)

I am having a difficult time dealing with this particular user. While we have attempted to reach compromises on Five Nights at Freddy's, he has butted heads and edit warred with me in the midst of my attempts to ensure that the article is concise and not a violation of WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE and WP:VGSCOPE (I'm aiming for a good DYK here). However, he is engaging in concerning behaviour, particularly on my talk page. He reverted the addition of a message I gave him on his talk page warning him about original research (although I must admit that maybe I shouldn't be doing that?). Then, he left a reply on my page disputing my claims; I simply removed it because I had read it, and we addressed the content issue. But then he reverted me on my talk page to restore the message, stating that I shouldn't "revert me like a run of the mill vandal".

Then, a user, OfficialWikiUser (talk · contribs), left a supportive message on my talk page that explained that Ryulong had been recently partaking in bitey behaviour, pointing to me to User_talk:Ryulong#Stalker, which discussed a Mr Wiki Pro (talk · contribs) sockpuppet named Ryulong biting newbie (talk · contribs) which had been making attacks at him. However, Ryulong outright censored the post from my page, later asserting that it was per WP:BANREVERT because it was a "banned user"; he later defended himself by also arguing that OfficialWikiUser was another Mr Wiki Pro sock. While I did, at first, defend my restoration by defending the remarks as "obviously helpful" to my morale, I must admit that it is starting to feel like something is going on here, especially as OfficialWikiUser refers to "veiws [sic]" that were not specifically posted by this particular user). But, another user has chimed in, noting that Ryulong's actions of censoring posts by accused "banned" users on other people's talk pages are not new.

But still; I think Ryulong is going a little overboard, and comparing normal talk page behaviour to vandalism feels like a personal attack. Somewhere down the line, we need an intervention. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not censorship. It is called enforcing the WP:Banning policy. What happened months ago regarding the other editor has no bearing on any of this. Banned users evading their ban using sockpuppets should be reverted, blocked, and ignored. This is giving him way too much credit for the shit he's doing. Messages left in bad faith by a banned user's sockpuppets on other users' talk pages should not be protected, as was the message sent by my block regarding x96lee15's user talk debacle.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A banned user, Mr Wiki Pro, is using you to get at Ryulong. Don't take the bait. Acroterion (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This should be taken to SPI and dealt with speedily because it does not appear obvious and doing such simple procedures usually helps prevent these issues. It is only causing more confusion and conflict at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious. Sockpuppets have repeatedly made pages in my user space accusing me of biting newbies and this is exactly what this new one has said. I don't understand why you have such a problem with me preliminarliy identifying banned user's sockpuppets when I see them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I must agree with ChrisGualtieri, we have processes you can use to deal with these issues with proper investigations, rather than operating under the process of guilty until proven innocent. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's called WP:DUCK, and checkusers don't want to deal with this because it's obvious enough and the technial evidence is annoying.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:DUCK is an essay. Duck or no duck, administrators have always been the only ones to determine who is a sock and who's not. Extending this right to yourself or any other user is power creep. KonveyorBelt 22:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If I am personally aware of the behavior of the several users who for any period of time over the past 8 years I've been on this website have made it their mission to harass me or are vandalizing articles in an obvious way, then I should be able to make the determination that the account is a sock puppet, report it to the proper place, and then deal with cleaning up after them under the exceptions to 3RR until an administrator or check user is able to stop the new account.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As ViperSnake mentions above, this exact same situation happened six months ago on my talk page. Ryulong would continue to revert edits from a supposed "banned" user on my talk page. Ryulong would revert, the other editor would post again, over and over. It only stopped when Ryulong stopped following my talk page. Consensus was in my favor that an editor has control over their talk page; not anyone else. See: [74] — X96lee15 (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I was never fucking following your user talk. New sockpuppets would appear elsewhere and they also baited you on your user talk. And that consensus was wrong. WP:DENY and WP:RBI take precedence over taking the bait.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"Don't annoy someone by giving them the orange new message bar over and over again" trumps "let Ryulong grind his way to the next shiny medal". --NE2 19:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

What the hell does this mean?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It means you're so interested in grinding that you don't think about the locals that have to deal with your trail of dead orcs. --NE2 20:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I preferred Skuls.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Woah, WTF "consensus was wrong"? It is a huge problem for an editor to believe that. Wikipdia is built on consensus, consensus cannot be wrong, you can disagree with consensus, but it is not "wrong" it just is. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A consensus that says "let banned editors continue trolling" is wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If you really wish to let messages from confirmed banned users remain on your own talk page, that is well within your rights (though some rules-sticklers are having a kitty over that at the moment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Banning Policy. But this person or persons have been trolling Ryulong for quite awhile it appears, and does not appear to be posting to your page for any reason other than to exacerbate the situation. Tarc (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong should be barred from edit warring an editor on their own talk page, he does this consistently and it is clearly a problem. When an editor restores content on their own page it should be protected as part of the latitude we give to users on their own talk page. If someone wants to post useful information on my talk page, I don't give a shit if they are banned (and yes this is an invitation to do so, useful information is always good). CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't useful. It was trolling.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not really for you to decide, is it?CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that that's the case from the other editors here who know more than you do. And frankly, you need to get over this debacle already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about me or how I might feel about you as an editor. It's about you thinking you are better than everyone else and thinking that you can control them. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No, this is about enforcing Wikipedia policy and not giving trolls the time of day.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll reiterate, since it's not getting through: a banned user is following editors with whom Ryulong disagrees and using them to get at Ryulong. I'm sure they're having a nice laugh at your expense. While Ryulong shouldn't re-revert if you re-post, you should not be feeding trolls. Acroterion (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what is happening, but it's Ryulong feeding the trolls and annoying legitimate users along the way. If he would just refrain from reverting any posts on any user's talk page (other than his own), this situation would be avoided. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The only way I'm feeding the trolls is because you guys feel that I'm somehow censoring someone who isn't allowed to edit here anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@X96lee15: Perhaps Ryulong would be willing to agree not to revert on your talk page if you agree to be vigilant in removing socks harassing him. Ryulong is the victim of harassment and you are essentially putting the blame on him. Despite your disagreements with him, you should be opposing the harassing behavior and not his efforts to get rid of it.--v/r - TP 20:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue with Ryulong, other editors and my talk page is long over, but I still place 100% of the blame on him. HE is the one that continued to "feed the trolls" by acknowledging them and reverting their edits on my talk page. Most of the posts didn't even mention him. There was no harassment towards him; only harassment was on me, having to see that little talk page indicator change. He was reverting edits that weren't proven to be by socks. Had he never made reverts to my talk page, the situation would have been over in an hour, instead of weeks.

IMO, he believes he owns every article/page on Wikipedia and he has the right to do whatever he wants. The only reason he has so many trolls is that he violates the 3RR so often that editors know they can get under his skin. The root cause of all this is Ryulong violating the 3RR for his loose definition of vandalism. A preventative action would be to put a 1RR sanction on him, in my opinion. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you have a PhD in harassment and get to decide when or when not Ryulong is being harassed? You don't. It ain't your talk page, it's WMFs. And the WMF has determined that Wikipedia isn't to be used for harassment. You want Ryulong not to revert? Find, take responsibility to do it yourself.--v/r - TP 04:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You can check the snark at the door. I can't believe I'm even discussing this, since my instance of this was 6 months ago. The only reason I chimed in was because I had a similar encounter with Ryulong to what was being discussed here. I just wanted to show there's a pattern. Ryulong brings all this upon himself. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I should hope there is a pattern. Since policy, WP:BAN, says to revert socks and banned editors and WP:HARASS says to remove harassment. So, a pattern is a good thing. The real question is why other editors arn't displaying the same pattern of appropriate behavior. That's what truly concerns me. Why are there a pattern of editors showing apathy toward harassment?--v/r - TP 04:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

What policy states on this matter

I'm completely uninvolved in this dispute, but I've interacted with both users before and so came across it. I feel that this issue is important enough that should I point out that the following actions are listed under WP:NOT3RR:

• "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines."
• "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users."

At first glance, it seems that there's a contradiction here in this particular type of case, and hence that this is something that should be resolved via consensus alone. However, the second listed point is unequivocal, while the first one has an exception. WP:POLEMIC states the following: "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive)." Thus, it is clear that removing a banned user's post from another user's talk page is exempt per that list, while adding it back is not - no matter who removes it or adds it back. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If a troll (banned user or otherwise) posts something that is solely a personal attack against user A, but on user B's talk page, and then user A deletes it, and then user B restores it, it is reasonable to assume that user B is endorsing that personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

And the respecting the user page guidelines is covered by this section of those guidelines:

Statements or pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone these behaviors:[Note 1] vandalism, copyright violation, edit warring, harassment, privacy breach, defamation, and acts of violence (includes all forms of violence but not mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence).
These may be removed, redacted or collapsed by any user to avoid the appearance of acceptability...

__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Suppose Editor A sees a sock of a long term vandal post on Editor B's talk. Editor A reverts the sock. Editor B reverts him. Editor A reverts it back. Editor A, for all intents and purposes, is now reverting Editor B, not the sock. And if Editor B reverts back, he too is not reverting the sock, but reverting Editor A. Assuming A and B are not socks themselves, if they go back and forth more than 3 times like this they are perfectly eligible for a block, as 3RRNO only covers the first revert, the one that Editor A has done on the sock. KonveyorBelt 01:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @User:Konveyor Belt: That's actually a good argument, but Editor B's actions may fall under WP:MEAT in this case and the exemption may thus still apply: "Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgement." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • But once Editor B reverts Editor A, I do not think he endorses the sock's opinion, he is merely reverting A. another example, suppose I post somewhere that I believe in Satanism. And Editor 1 reverts it believeing it to be unsuitable for an encylcopedia. An editor 2 reverts. Editor 2 reverting it does not mean in anyway that he or she is a Satanist or would like to join me in becoming one (not that I am). It simply means he was reverting Editor A's removal of my post. KonveyorBelt 02:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
      • @User:Konveyor Belt: Would you mind not using highly offensive examples like that in discussions with me (and preferably in general too)? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't quite see your "merely"'s holding in all cases. If the sock put up a clearly offensive physical threat or clear vandalism and B reverted it back, then I don't think Editor A would be blocked for reverting it multiple times while they waited for an admin to show up, would they? That's not how we treat copyright/BLP violations or other vandalism. If an editor restores material taken down for dodgy reasons, it's an implication they at least think it's not harmful. If Editor B restored a talk page comment that said "Let's burn down this house at this address tomorrow", they couldn't really say, "I didn't write the original comment" without any repercussion, could they? __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I think if it's material that's otherwise fine except for the sole issue that it comes from a banned user, then you can revert the sock but generally not an editor who re-adds it. If it's material that wouldn't be considered acceptable on other WP:NOT3RR grounds outside of socking, then it should be removable regardless of who's adding or re-adding the material. Otherwise it's a weird loophole of keeping usually-unallowed harmful material because the authorship of the comment is murky.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

A consensus that says "let banned editors continue trolling" is wrong. --User:Ryulong

The OP of this section has been informed, repeatedly, that he is arguing against policy. Policy is clear. CombatWombat42 is strongly advised to drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Some troll out there is very happy about how this discussion is going, please don't feed the trolls. Chillum 22:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC) In this [75] edit, A user said "consensus..is wrong", Do we really want a user here that believes they are so much better than consensus? CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Don't split this shit off. And get off of my case. You have had it out for me ever since I made the mistake of suspecting sockpuppetry in March. I want a two-way IBAN from CombatWombat so I don't have to deal with this shit anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC) (ec)Some editors no doubt feel that the world is flat, but that opinion also is not an incident requiring administrator action. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC) The difference between editors believing the world is flat and editors believing they are above consensus is that the former only effects their ability to properly edit geography related articles, the latter effects their ability to work within the community. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC) The fact that I disagree with an old consensus about user behavior doesn't mean shit about my ability to work on this site as a whole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC) The consensus was wrong. The consensus was about Ryulong requesting protection for someone else's talk page. Ryulong cannot do that. However, individual editors (with the exception of Jimbo's per policy) do not have the right to allow banned editors to edit their talk page - especially to harass other users. The fact that you, CombatWombat42, are supporting harassment of a user is simply appalling and I think it would be appropriate for you to archive this section yourself.--v/r - TP 20:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC) There was a consensus here on ANI a few months ago about a serial IP harasser who was doing more or less the same thing. While the harassment in that case was more clear-cut, the consensus was that restoring such material placed by banned users was an implicit endorsement of abusive behavior, and was sanctionable. I'll look up the reference. Acroterion (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Here it is [76]. That case was more extreme, but the effect is the same. Acroterion (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Consensus cannot be wrong, your interpretation of it can be, it can change, but approaching the Wikipedia with the opinion that you are better that consensus is a fatal flaw. The only way Wikipedia works is consensus and Ryulong saying it is wrong his putting himself above it. If he wants to change his words to "Consensus changed" or "You are interpreting consensus differently than I", I will happily drop the issue, but as it stands that is about the most arrogant and least helpful thing someone could say. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Let me disagree with a consensus that negatively affected me FFS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I'm shocked that you are persisting, CombatWombat42. You really need to stop this road you are heading down right now because it dead-ends pretty harshly for you. Harassment is not allowed on Wikipedia - editors have no right, authority, or immunity to restore harassment to their user page. The only appropriate consensus that developed off of that thread you linked is that Ryulong may not request protection of someone else's talk page against their wishes.--v/r - TP 20:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC) What road? I have been very clear that I don't think it is ok for anyone to think that "consensus can be wrong", for the third time, you can disagree with consensus, or you can interpret it differently, it cannot be wrong. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Yes, it can be. A small consensus of ~10 editors does not override long standing English Wikipedia policy. Period dot. A local consensus can interpret policy but it cannot be in direct opposition to policy. What you are saying the consensus says, is in direct opposition to policy.--v/r - TP 20:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Where do "long standing English Wikipedia policy"'s come from? CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Through large consensus and community practice. Can you show us a community consensus of policy-establishing proportions saying that harassment is allowed when a user protects it on their talk page?--v/r - TP 20:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC) So you would say that "consensus" Is Wikipedia's "constitution" as it were? Consensus is the thing from which all other things (policy, practice) comes from? CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Start here WP:CONEXCEPT, Then look at here Wikimedia Foundation policies, then move to Harassing and Abusing Others.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC) What decides what "harassment and abusing others" is? CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC) In that scenario, the Foundation. But ArbCom decisions can trump local consensus too. This has Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves. and Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action. in their statements of principle. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Can you point me to an example of the foundation taking unilateral action in stopping harassment? Administrators have their powers through consensus. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Yes, if an admin takes an action you don't like, you can see if there's a consensus to remove their powers or reverse the decision. And the same for other editors. If an admin, or an editor, believes a policy or guideline represents the stronger, more stable consensus than a local consensus, they're not necessarily acting against consensus as a concept. If editors are re-posting comments that are seen by enough editors to be harassment, then this guideline seems relevant. According to it, harassment is one of the situations where editors don't have the traditional leeway over content they usually have. This is, of course, from a consensus that users will use their talk pages within these guidelines.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Seems like we agree that consensus is one of the most important things for Wikipedia, I take it a step further and say it is the only thing that gives any policy on Wikipedia power. From that I say when an editor is willing to say "consensus..is wrong" that there is something fundamentally wrong with that editors attitude and it should be examined by the community. Obviously in this specific situation the facts indicate that Ryulong probably meant something between "consensus changed" and "the consensus in that situation was to limited to be effective" but he hasn't said that which makes me concerned he still believes he can over-ride consensus because "consensus..is wrong"CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC) He has never once said "he...believes he can over-ride consensus". Not once. It is your, and only your, selective reading of his comment that has led you, and only you, to that conclusion. Ryulong does not owe you anything based on your falsely premised and out of context selective reading and accusation. CombatWombat42, will you please assure me that you have no intention of ever placing an image of a penis on the White House article?--v/r - TP 23:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Of course I inferred that, we all infer things every day its how human works. What were you doing when you threaten to block me here: "You really need to stop this road you are heading down right now because it dead-ends pretty harshly for you. Harassment is not allowed on Wikipedia". You were inferring I was or am doing something (I'm really not sure what) that is block-able. Admittedly it appears that you do not read it that way, but even Ryulong has not claimed otherwise. I have asked for clarification numous times and made it clear I would drop it if Ryulong told me I was wrong. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Quoting A consensus that says "let banned editors continue trolling" is wrong. as "consensus..is wrong" is patently misleading. It would be like someone quoting I would drop it if Ryulong told me I was wrong. as CombatWombat42 said "I was wrong". You are clearly misrepresenting the words of another editor, and more than one editor has pointed this out to you.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Ooh. or as bad as quoting You were inferring I was or am doing something (I'm really not sure what) that is block-able. as CombatWombat42 said "I...am doing something...block-able".__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I have absolutely no problem with you disagreeing with it, say that "I disagree with that consensus", I have a problem with you saying it is wrong when the only frame of reference we have on Wikipedia is consensus. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I am even OK with you saying "That consensus was too limited in scope", as TParis pointed out above consensus does scale. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC) TParis, I have not said anything about the correctness of Ryulong's actions in this thread when it comes to removing supposed trolls comments on another talk page articles. I have stated very clearly, in a separate section " Do we really want a user here that believes they are so much better than consensus?", No one has addressed that question. I created it as a seperate section for a reason. Ryulong added it as a sub section of the other argument for some reason, not wanting to argue about details I left it as it was, but it clearly confused you see this [77]. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC) That's a red herring. Your argument is an argument from authority fallacy. Just because a few editors said it under the guise of consensus doesn't make it right. It only makes it a consensus. We've already established that it is a local and weak consensus as well. Your final logical error is Fallacy of composition: Just because Ryulong disputes this local consensus doesn't mean he disputes all consensus. Ryulong has said nothing about consensus in general, he specifically regarded that consensus, and he is correct. I dont know why I dont just take my own advice and ignore CombatWombat42.--v/r - TP 22:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC) My problem is not Ryulong having a problem with that consensus, my problem is how he said it and that it speaks to a pattern of behavior. He didn't say "that consensus was too limited to be of value" or "that consensus changed" he said "consensus..is wrong" implying that he had the right to over-ride consensus, something I obviously disagree with. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC) "my problem is how he said it" Great, so you are causing all of this drama because you refuse to read his comment in the proper context? I see.--v/r - TP 22:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC) "and that it speaks to a pattern of behavior"..."because you refuse to read his comment in the proper context?" CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Banned users are not allowed to edit, and their posts are removable on-sight regardless of their alleged quality. That's an absolute for articles and talk pages of articles and such. There's a bit more flexibility where user talk pages are concerned. I've had a number of editors delete trolling from my talk page. Sometimes I'll put it back if it's particularly amusing or useful. It's technically OK to delete banned editors' comments from someone else's talk page. However, if that user doesn't want them deleted, then it's best not to delete them. A better option may be to add a posting rather than deleting one, pointing out that the given poster is a banned user. If the user doesn't want to protect his talk page from banned users, it's not worth edit-warring over. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I archived this section and CombatWombat42 chose to restore it to argue a position that has been repeatedly rebuffed with policy. There is nothing left to discuss, I recommend an uninvolved admin close this and the rest of us ignore CombatWombat42's pointless arguing.--v/r - TP 22:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC) As noted earlier, there is a similar "banned means banned" vs. "it's not your place to police another user's talk page" that I'm involved in at the moment. In principle, I'd say that it is not right for someone to continuously remove a comment against the wishes of the talk page owner, but in this specific situation the comment was so unhelpful and so blatantly a troll that it would've been nice if everyone would've agreed that a nose-tweaking personal attack against Ryulong really added nothing but rancor to the situation. If the person had posted something even vaguely constructive or important, then that is where I am of the "to hell with banned means banned" opinion. Tarc (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

---

Those who support Ryulong's edit warring: how would you like it if two people decided to carry out an edit war on your talk page? At the very least, I'd quickly learn to disregard the 'new messages' banner when in the middle of something. --NE2 00:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

PS: Ryulong clearly started it all by wearing a short skirt making this rubbish revert. --NE2 00:44, 28 August 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.

PPS: there's no consensus on what policy says, despite The Bushranger's official-looking notice. --NE2 03:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Drop the fucking stick already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

And the current "official-looking notice" (and really, you don't know that the hatting template simply looks that way?) is that repeatedly extending and commenting on closed threads is disruptive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Putting aside the banned user stuff, Ryulong's still in the wrong

[78] is completely at odds with Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. I doubt this is the first time Ryulong's pulled this. --NE2 03:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I felt insulted that my message was removed after ViperSnake had simply given me basic template warnings over stuff that could have been handled on the article talk page and I wished to engage in a discussion with him regarding article content on his page. Also it seems you've been told to drop the stick already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Feeling insulted is not a reason to repeat your own comment on someone's talk page after they've removed it, per WP:OWNTALK. You were wrong on that specific edit. Other users should reconsider whether they should have restored poison-intended messages. The banned user was the creator of this mess and was maliciously wrong and deliberately hurtful in a way that no one else here was. The people your stalker targeted were victims too. Fighting each other over how you each responded to directed trolling helps no one. __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant really because I only made one restoration of the thread after which there was a civil discussion on my own user talk.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Only doing it once just means you were only wrong once. And you say it worked out fine? Except the user you had a civil discussion with still started this whole ANI thread. I understand what you were feeling when you did it, but it's an easily avoidable wrong that irritates people and makes it harder for them to see where you're right about other things.__ E L A Q U E A T E 05:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This thread was started because of a banned troll. I was wrong for reverting my own comment but this shit has gone on longer than necessary.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It was wrong. It was not so wrong that anything needs to be done about it. NE2 drop the stick and walk away now please. Chillum 04:57, 28 August 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.

Unblocking IP range

Resolved

 – Unblocked. Materialscientist (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: has blocked the IP range 117.239.0.0/16 for spam. I am conducting a Wiki academy on behalf of the Wikimedia India Chapter at NMIMS, to whom the IP belongs. Please unblock the range for ten hours from now [0447-1447 UTC]. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Troll 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.

---

SoggySoup24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly not here to contribute constructively. Eik Corell (talk) 08:45, 30 August 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.

Jack Sebastian WP:CIVIL and attempts to bias conflict resolution

There are several problems with this user, but I'll bring up two here:

1. I have repeatedly told him to stop referring to my contributions or the sources I find as fecal matter and in other obscene terms [79] [80] Hit CTRL-F "crap" or "festering" "steaming" on either my talk page or talk:Oathkeeper and you'll see it. (I've actually told him to stop more times; these are just two of the most recent. If this isn't enough times to tell someone to quit swearing at me, give me a number and I'll come back then. Not kidding.) I'd like it if someone else told him to reread WP:CIVIL. He's clearly not going to listen to me. This isn't his only problem with civility, but it's the most clear-cut. He's also ordered me to "find another article to edit." I think there might also be WP:OWN issues in play.

2. He's also attempting to bias an ongoing discussion at the RSN: There is currently a filing there for Westeros.org.[81]. One of the issues that came up is the fact that this site has been cited as a source in several GA-rated articles similar to the one in dispute. These articles contain content that corresponds to the disputed text and use the same format. In those articles, the content has been stable for years. Some of these GA articles have been reevaluated and the content and source were always kept.

I realize that precedent is not the be-all-end-all of RSN decisions on Wikipedia, but it is on the list. I feel that it is misleading of this other editor to delete all the precedents while the discussion is ongoing. I have asked him to revert and wait until after the RSN discussion is complete. He dismissed my concerns. [82] [83] [84]

He also keeps insisting on using a biased header for the RSN discussion. I've offered compromises but he insists on keeping it.

Ordinarily I'd wait a little longer on #2, but he's made his position clear and the issue is time-sensitive. If this second issue is better addressed elsewhere, like DRN, kindly let me know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

While I suspect that this is Darkfrog's usual practice of forum-shopping (she currently has no less than two RSN requests, two RfC's and more section discussions on multiple pages than I can even bother to count), I will respond to this complaint.

I often call unusable material (statements or references) crap, as in junk or nonsense. I have never used it as an expletive to refer to Darkfrog. In one instance I did refer to her switch in tactics to moving unusable references from the production section to the plot section of an article:

"Did she find some sources that weren't absolute crap? Sure, but none of those sources went as far as Darkfrog24 wanted - listing all of the chapters that she felt the episode in question drew from. In every single incarnation of her edits, this list remained unchanged. When we kept removing it, she switched tactics and began moving the unproven bits in the the plot summary itself...It was like someone continually offering a plate of steaming dog crap as a side dish to dinner, and when found inedible by others, instead offering that same crap as seasoning and garnish alongside the meal."

To my recollection, I haven't used any of the less excusable synonyms for crap. Darkfrog24 could develop a thicker skin, as I am fairly certain my language isn't that bad at all.

As this complaint about my terrible use of the word 'crap' would appear to be linked to her frustration over the RSN request title, I'd point out that the title is "Westeros.Org. Again". Darkfrog24 seems to think that this use of 'again' is going to scare away all the people who might post there. In point of fact, it is the third time that Westeros.Org has been asked about at RSN. The first time it was shot down as a source and the second filing passed without comment. She has been fighting consensus and RfC findings in a single article for almost three months.

To me, this appears that Darkfrog24 - in filing this complaint - seem to think that the best defense is a good offense. If she wants me to use happier words to describe inadequate sources, I will. It won't make them any more usable, though. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No, Jack, I filed this complaint now because you just cursed at me now.

Ah, that's right. I did misquote you. It wasn't "festering" it was "steaming."

Yes, I think that putting a whiny complaint in the header will deter RSN regulars. Some of these sources have been filed more than once because no one responds to them. This is an article about a TV show, and the regulars are fielding questions about Gaza. We need all the respectability we can get. If "Westeros.org: Fansite or expert site?" doesn't suit you then just lose the "Again" and say "Westeros.org" by itself. As for the previous filings, Westeros.org was not rejected as a source. The one in May advised readers about the conflict on Oathkeeper and Breaker of Chains and the next one got no comments from anyone but you and me.

As for your accusations, the consensus of our first RfC was that more sources were needed. So I went and found more sources. That isn't fighting consensus or forum shopping. It's source-finding. It's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: Jack has reverted his deletions. I'd still like it if someone other than myself could tell him that cursing at someone who's asked you to stop is not all right and weigh in on the header issue, but the deletion matter is handled for the present. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I've lived in the American Bible Belt for a few decades, and I can't remember the last time I met someone who considered the word "crap" to constitute cursing. I do think that people should refrain from using the F-word in a professional environment, upon a colleague's clear request, but there is no consensus among Wikipedia administrators for 'that.' So, if you like: Jack, you should not curse at someone who has asked you to stop. Darkfrog, "crap" is not a curse word in any sizeable English-speaking culture or subculture. Does that help? 76.72.20.218 (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't think it's a curse word? You don't have to take my word for it: [85] The word means "fecal matter," User76, so I think he should stop referring to my edits as such. Also, while you and your coworkers might not mind tossing the word around a bit, there's a difference between that and referring to someone's hard work as "steaming XXX XXXX," as Jack does above. Even if he'd replaced that last word with "dung" or "droppings," it wouldn't be okay. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"The word means fecal matter" =/= "is a curse word". "Crap" is not a profanity. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand. My co-workers and I do not use the word "crap" to describe each other's work. When my boss is displeased with my work, he says, "you fucked up." When I am displeased with his work, I say, "that's some horseshit." Those are curse words. They are acceptable in some industries and subcultures, but not others, and I would not use them to describe anyone's work on Wikipedia. "Crap" is just about the nicest way to express contempt that the language allows (and it is very difficult to work collaboratively without ever expressing contempt for a specific piece of work). Your dictionary definition does not support your argument: "vulgarity" and "curse word" do not mean the same thing, and, as The Bushranger pointed out, "fecal matter" is not relevant. 76.72.20.218 (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think that even Darkfrog24 herself would readily admit that my language has been limited to the word crap which, as Bushranger noted, is not a swear word in any circle I've been in, and I have nuns and other religious peeps in my social circles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Question, guys: If Jack Sebastian had described my efforts as an attempt to feed people steaming dog "feces," would you think that was reasonably civil? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If you were having difficulty feeding an obdurate toddler, I would consider it incivil. If you were mismanaging the resources of a non-profit, I would consider it far too mild. Civilized language is necessarily contextual. For example, when you ask a question like that, I have to describe it as Taking the piss. 76.72.20.218 (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I'm serious. I don't like that Jack refers to my contributions as feces and I want him to stop. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Crap dose not always = feces. If I tell my kids to pick up their crap, I'm talking about their junk (which itself does not always mean private parts (which itself does not always refer to penises (which itself does not always refer to anatomy))). Seeing as WP:CIVIL does say "comment on content, not contributors", someone can call a poor edit a poor edit and not be expected to be taken to ANI for doing so - it doesn't mean they're calling you crappy. the panda ₯’ 11:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedians are required to be civil, but at the same time we're not the kiddie pool (or, for that matter, the Simple English Wikipedia). There is nothing wrong with using the term "crap" (especially when, as the panda observes, it's referring to content as the relevant policy states), the word "crap" is only considered objectionable by folks so puritanical my mother would flinch away from them, and we are not going to be sanctioning anybody for using it, regardless of how many times you claim it's objectionable in defiance of both linguistic reality and common sense. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• As a long-term witness to the interactions between Jack and DF, and a strong proponent of civility, I'll just say that I don't think Jack has always spoken as well as he might have when addressing things DF had said (I've talked to him directly about that a couple of times). That said, if one reviews the immense amount of discussion at Talk:Oathkeeper, I believe editors might conclude that DF has been editing tendentiously and that the editors involved in that discussion have not received a great deal of support (admin or otherwise) even when they made specific attempts to do so, which has likely increased frustration all around (I know it's made me more...terse...than I might be otherwise). Under the circumstances, which could be construed as DF prolonging a dispute that other editors have generally reached a consensus on, it does not surprise me that on occasion Jack might respond with a degree of tactlessness, and that under the circumstances this should likely be excused unless he begins engaging in clear personal attacks...which I don't believe has generally been the case to this point.

It should perhaps be noted that there was a prior ANI case filed here involving these two. At the time I suggested that interaction and/or topic bans might be in order, but ultimately the case was archived due to inactivity without any resolution. It does not surprise me to see that this matter has been raised here once more.

Diffs are available upon request. DonIago (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I get frustrated too, Don, and I'm confident you have, but neither of us talks to people like that. Neither has any other long- or short-term participant in this debate. When I referred to Jack pulling new complaints out of something, "his hat" was not the first term that sprung to mind, but I put the effort in. It wasn't that hard.

Don, you need to take a look at WP:TEND if you're going to toss it at me. I've repeatedly asked other participants in this dispute, including yourself, if you have any objections other than sourcing to the text in question. You keep saying, "No; bring in a source and this is acceptable." So I keep bringing in sources. That's not tendentious. That's doing what's explicitly asked of me.

But there are bad feelings in play. Frankly, I think that if I'd found Westeros.org first instead of last and realized that there was precedent for the disputed content in GA-rated articles, DQ and I would have finished our discussion in less than a week. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, but I'm not interested in having a discussion on this matter with either yourself or Jack; I was just stating my perception of matters to date because I felt it might be relevant. If non-involved admins/editors have questions for me I'll make every effort to address them. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Well thanks for doing so, Doniago. This time, I think I do understand. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Just thought I'd separate this from all the rest, so you can process it, Darkfrog24: you keep saying you are bringing sources. What the complaint was (and is) is that these sources have to fit our criteria for inclusion. Not squeak by the criteria, not result in several RfC's, months of discussion and several-forum-shoppings. They should fit squarely within our criteria. You - all by yourself - have created the toxic work environment that you are in by thinking you know better than the rest of us what belongs in the article. Please clue in. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack, you and I do not see things the same way. We do not interpret policy the same way. I have absolutely no magical telepathic powers that will tell me ahead of time what sources make your stars align and what sources will not. As you have mentioned several times, you liked some of the sources that I found but not others. FiveThirtyEight looked all right but not that impressive to me, but you turned out to think it was fine. On the other side, Westeros.org's is an almost textbook example of an expert SPS and it has a long history of use in GA-rated articles. I'm actually pretty surprised that you have a problem with that one. There is no predicting you.

It is not forum-shopping to find one source after a previous one has been rejected. It is source-finding. It is how Wikipedia is supposed to work.

The guy who refers to other people's work as feces, argues issues not in dispute as if they were, and jumps the line to post a biased filing to the RSN after other parties had agreed to work out a consensus text should not complain about the toxicity of the work environment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

multiple admins abusing power at vani hari

A fresh supply of troll-b-gon supplied to the multiple admins. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Multiple admins have been abusing power and harassing users at the vani hari page. They are making false claims that anyone who disagrees with them is a sockpuppet and now have abused their power to control not just the page but the talk page so they can own the article and delete discussion on news coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.103.95 (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC) This appears to be SCIENCE MEANS REALITY who is a long term abuse case. See the long list of IPs(particularly 98.196.234.202) pushing POV at Vani Hari over the last week. Chillum 04:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Obvious anon sock blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 04:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Not cool, you can't just make claims like that and abuse power without proof, especially Dreadstar who is one of the admins who thinks they WP:OWN the article and is obviously involved just like his friend Chillum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.190.149 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 30 August 2014‎ Noting that Fraudster and Chillum are a team themselves, one abusively blocking users here too, the other closing discussions even though he is WP:INVOLVED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.190.149 (talk • contribs) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evasion of Block by User:Indranil Gangopadhyay

User Indranil Gangobadhyay is currently blocked for repeated creation of a deleted page[deleted due to self-promotional contents]. However the user is evading the block with another account Indranil Devgoura Gangopadhyay which he is using, again, to recreate self-promotional pages[ user contributions of both accounts linked here and here ] . I request that this account be blocked as well as repeated warnings(see here and here) are clearly being ignored by the user -- SaHiL (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly a new user and I'm inclined to WP:AGF. I'd keep an eye on the contributions and deal accordingly. The block was initiated because the user moved from the original name to the longer name, the reason being "second account". RWCasinoKid (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Lies, Bias and Abuse of Position: User DougWeller

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 DougWeller has engaged in long term, systematic, abuse of his position in the article Arthur Kemp. motivated by a clear political bias.

1. User DougWeller has, over a long period, made blatant, politically motivated edits at Arthur Kemp, in which he posts up all manner of completely unsubstantiated allegations, and then deliberately deletes any evidence--backed up by solid documentary and referenced sources, which completely refute the allegations he has have posted up.

2. User DougWeller's continuous abuse as an administrator has included getting me blocked whenever I correct any of his blatantly biased edits.

3. User DougWeller has now posted up on my Talk page a completely unfounded lie that I have tried to abuse the system by logging in from another IP address. I strenuously deny this, and user DougWeller has absolutely no evidence to prove this allegation which he has deliberately posted up in an attempt to damage my standing on Wikipedia.

I request urgent action on this matter, and ask that the unbiased administrators intervene in this matter.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs to demonstrate any of these claims? Can you give us a link to where you and this user tried to work it out directly? Chillum 15:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

TheFallenCrowd You were supposed to inform DougWeller that you had started this thread. Fortunately Location has done so. Please follow the proper protocol in the future. MarnetteD|Talk 15:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I informed DOugWeller on his talk page, where I first posted up the objections listed above.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you attempt to talk to this person before coming to the noticeboard? I see you dropping accusations on his talk page then coming directly here. Was there a more in depth conversation somewhere else?

If you want us to see the "abuse" you are talking to then you will need to provide evidence in the form of diffs that this has been going on. Chillum 15:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking at your user talk page, TheFallenCrowd, I don't see any indication that DougWeller is acting out of step with community standards. From the look of things, you've been edit warring on Arthur Kemp for months about two years. I'm really surprised that was your first block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Example of User DougWeller's abuse of editing: In the article Arthur Kemp, the SPLC is quoted as saying that Kemp "left South Africa because he testified in the trials of Janusz Waluś and Clive Derby-Lewis." The SPLC has absolutely no evidence for this, and it is clearly a politically-motivated allegation. Nonetheless, my edit did not delete the allegation, but merely posted up referencd evidence showing that Kemp left South Africa in 2007, 14 years after the trial.

The original allegation read as follows:

"In 1993, Kemp was a prosecution witness in the trial relating to the murder of the South African Communist Party leader Chris Hani. A 2007 report from the Southern Poverty Law Center asserted that he left South Africa because he testified in the trials of Janusz Waluś and Clive Derby-Lewis.[4]"

My edit changed this to read as follows:

"In 1993, Kemp was a prosecution witness in the trial relating to the murder of the South African Communist Party leader Chris Hani. A 2007 report from the Southern Poverty Law Center asserted that he left South Africa because he testified in the trials of Janusz Waluś and Clive Derby-Lewis.[4] Furthermore, Kemp pointed out that he had emigrated from South Africa in 2007, fourteen years after the trial took place, and that this was "Hardly the actions of someone "fleeing in fear."[5]"

As you can see, this did not even delete the (unsubstantiated) allegation from the SPLC, but merely gave a referenced refutation of the allegation.

User DougWeller has continuously deleted this--and other referenced edits --and when I undo his edits, he then bans me under the 3RR rule. I have never objected to this, because I know what the 3RR rule is, but my argument here is that user DougWeller leaves me no choice but to revert his edits, knowing full well that he can then get me banned under this rule.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like trying to shoehorn a content dispute into a complaint about behavior. Has there been any attempt to discuss this beyond reverting and sniping in edit summaries? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have a very strong suspicion that TheFallenCrowd has COI regarding Arthur Kemp and probably should not be editing in that subject area. Zad68 16:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Example of User DougWeller's lies: On My talk page, user DougWeller has posted up the following slanderous lie:

"It's pretty obvious you tried to edit as an IP after you were blocked."

This completely untrue, and totally unsubstantiated. I have no idea what he talking about, and he has only put this up as part of his ongoing campaign to undermine my status on Wikipedia so that he can continue making the biased edits, as detailed above.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing the issue calmly and rationally with Doug on the article talk page, instead of just hurling accusations? Just a suggestion. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 16:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP appeared immediately after TFC had been blocked for edit warring. The IP deleted exactly the same content that TFC had been edit-warring to keep out of the article. Paul B (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea who reverted that edit. It was a plain revert, and it is outrageous that I am accused of doing it without any evidence at all. It could have been absolutely anyone who saw the obvious bias--particularly the claim by DougWeller that the "link was not working" (which was, of course, another lie) when it clearly was. Once again, if you have any evidence that it was me who made the unlogged revert, please post it up here, or stop making this outrageous insinuation that I have tried to subvert Wiki rules.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamlet, act III, scene II. Paul B (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This "rant" is fairly typical of the debating style of The Fallen Crowd, who has, shall we say, a clearly close connection to the subject of the article Arthur Kemp, a well known white supremacist and author of the book/website March of the Titans. TFC has repeatedly attempted to whitewash the article. He has for quite a while been attempting to delete well sourced information about Kemp's testimony in a trial in South Africa. Dougweller and other editors, myself included, have repeatedly reverted his removal of the content. TFC has just come back from a ban for edit warring, and has dived in once more with exactly the same deletions (which also make the section unintelligible). He is trying to win an edit war of attrition. Paul B (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 6)I found evidence of the political agenda here.

1) The only edits Dougweller made to the article before TheFallenCrowd were noting Kemp's connection to the BNP and pointing out problems with citing lulu.com.

2) TheFallenCrowd removed sourced information and inserted WP:SELFPUB claims that are contradicted by WP:RSs. If it was about neutrality, he'd've (at most) only added Kemp's claim with "Kemp, however, claims..."

3) I'm seeing this before the block and this immediately after the block. Looks rather WP:DUCK-y to me. And don't worry, @TheFallenCrowd:, Doug's accusations won't damage your standing, you edit warring to turn an article into a puff-piece for a white supremacist will. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That edit by the IP sure quacks loud. It does look a lot like evasion to me. Chillum 16:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have no idea who made that edit. It certainly wasn't me. If you have any evidence that it was, please do post it here, otherwise please stop spreading lies and disinformation.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Wonder why they didn't ask to be unblocked on the grounds of not being you? That still wouldn't be proof, but it'd at least be the beginning of semi-plausible doubt. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that because an anonymous poster reverted an article and then hasn't come back, that this is proof this is me? Do you have any evidence for this? If so, please post it up here so that everyone can see.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The correct place to do so is here and @TheFallenCrowd: I'm not sure how familiar you are with Wikipedia, but we do have people who can see such things. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 16:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Good. Why hasn't anyone looked into if it was me, before posting up these outrageous lies?TheFallenCrowd (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As listed as WP:SOCK "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address" is one of the classic indicators of socking. MarnetteD|Talk 16:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Why did the IP make the same edit you would have if you had not been blocked, continuing the exact sort of argument you were having before you were blocked, with the exact same writing voice, and not try to be unblocked on the grounds that it wasn't you? What argument do you possibly have for us to not believe it was you? Just saying "it wasn't me" doesn't prove anything. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see the IP just reverted DougWeller's change, and pointed out that he had lied about the URL not being visible. What evidence do you have that it was me? Please post it here. I am more than happy for anyone to look at whatever technical details they need to. It seems as if your tactic here is just to throw political epithets and accuse me of lying wihtout any foundation at all.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Getting an editor's account blocked is not an "abuse as an administrator." In this case DougWeller followed correct procedure in setting up a complaint at the edit-warring noticeboard, and an uninvolved administrator imposed a block. TheFallenCrowd had the opportunity to reply, which he did, and to appeal the block, which he did not. He made more than three reverts in 24 hrs and that is usually sufficient for an account to be blocked. TFD (talk)

Note that there's now an open SPI on this issue. It would be nice to get at least one of the blatant socks blocked right off so we can get an autoblock in place and avoid having to semi ANI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that's already been taken care of. Excellent. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Considering that this has now turned disruptive and this editor doesn't seem to be here for the right reasons, I think we should turn this into a block discussion. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 17:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Once the check user technical whatever is completed, I will expect an apology from you on my talk page for the utterly scurrilous allegations you have made against me regarding fake accounts, sock puppetry etc. Or am I hoping for too much?TheFallenCrowd (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Provided, whatever the results are, you apologize regardless in an equally prominent place for disrupting the site with your temper tantrum over not being able to turn an article into a propaganda piece in favor of a neo-Nazi. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban on TheFallenCrowd for Arthur Kemp?

• (edit conflict) Question: Are there grounds for a topic ban for TheFallenCrowd on Arthur Kemp? (See also the previous ANI thread on this issue) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • While I also think a block may be appropriate (in spite of the possibility that some of the socks below were just a banned user trolling), I agree with Ian below that a topic ban should still be put in place. Should TFC ever return (e.g., via WP:OFFER), such a return should still be subject to a topic ban on Arthur Kemp. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban before it's even formalized. We do not need propaganda for white supremacists here. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: *Support block as well, still supporting topic ban in case block is overturned or does not go through. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban. The Fallen Crowd is a POV warrior dedicated to whitewashing Kemp. Paul B (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oh I see. Because I dare post up referenced additions to an article, which refute unsubstantiated allegations, you now wish to ban me? Democracy only as long as it is your democracy?TheFallenCrowd (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, because you censored reliably sourced information and added questionably sourced propaganda for a neo-Nazi, edit warred to keep it, and lied about others when you didn't get your way. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"Lied about others" -- where is your evidence of this? Or is it just another unsubstantiated lies from you? As for the rest of your comments, your political slip is showing.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Accusing others of political bias for undoing your whitewashing on a white supremacist's article is nothing but hypocritical lying. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Wow that boomerang came back quickly oh, I support the topic ban as well. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 16:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies as well as several other policies. BTW Wikipedia is not a democracy. MarnetteD|Talk 16:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Given the long history and lack of neutrality I think this is reasonable. Given the misrepresentations of sources I support a block ranging from 6 months to indef as first choice if gains consensus. Chillum 16:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Question - WP:SNOW close? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Community ban discussions should continue for at least 24 hours. Chillum 16:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support well-deserved boomerang. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Changed my mind - support block and topic ban instead. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support The repeated misrepresentation of a source back in April shows TheFallenCrowd has considerable trouble editing neutrally on this topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment this has got to be one of the fastest topic bans that'll ever be set, or am I forgetting something? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 16:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd really like to see an admin snow close this. Do you think we might have a record? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, community ban discussions should continue for at least 24 hours. This is not a race and a record is not our goal. Chillum 16:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It's nice to see good things happen, hence the enthusiasm that you're seeing. When the community comes together to stop things like this, it gives me just a little bit more faith in the ability of the community. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 16:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, but we have to be careful that enthusiasm doesn't slip into grave-dancing. If we approach it from a "we're sorry to have to do this, but..." angle rather than a "ding dong the witch is dead" (of which I have been guilty of in the past), there's always a chance that the editor may be able to redeem him/herself in the future. Tarc (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Scratch that; good faith went out the window with the sock votes below. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Obvious sock-puppet votes. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose take this to RfC instead, like User:Braaad. --WoW65 (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC) — WoW65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Account was 12 minutes old at time of this post.  Looks like a duck to me. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Oppose This belongs in Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and then Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, not discussed here. --TheEditorFromEpsomRC2 (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support, and call for a quick emptying of his sock drawer as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Once the check user technical whatever is completed, I will expect an apology from you on my talk page for the utterly scurrilous allegations you have made against me regarding fake accounts, sock puppetry etc. Or am I hoping for too much?TheFallenCrowd (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Provided, whatever the results are, you apologize regardless in an equally prominent place for disrupting the site with your temper tantrum over not being able to turn an article into a propaganda piece in favor of a neo-Nazi. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - This user's editing at Arthur Kemp is wholly detrimental to the integrity of the article.- MrX 18:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. Depending on the results of the SPI, a Site Ban may be necessary for sock-puppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

*Support and maybe review some of his other edits especially on subjects such as the Korherr Report. These edits[86] don't seem to match these sources,[87] [88] [89](and others) and the article still reflects his edits. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Changing to Support indefinite block in preference to topic ban having thought more about his other edits. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Could you clarify for the benefit of those of us not fluent in German what the issue is? I note that TheFallenCrowd seems to be citing a primary source (which is in itself probably not appropriate), and if he is doing so in a manner which misrepresents it, we should probably be considering an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed Korherr Report and some sources and while I did not found outright lies he certainly twisted the article by selective use of mostly primary sources and omission of important facts. (e.g. "not an SS member" sourced to Korherr himself, omission of NSDAP membership and giving the overall impression that K. was just an statistician who knew nothing about the Holocaust.) Basically EEML-style, only much more disgusting. 80.132.69.140 (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Basically that's it. TFC has made Korherr look almost like an innocent victim which is not what the sources say. He gave a big pov twist to the article. I'm guessing that EEML is Eastern European Mailing list. Dougweller (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think a topic ban is appropriate here. We've got a POV pushing sock master. Blocking is the appropriate remedy. Support block.--v/r - TP 21:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I still think a block is more appropriate, but per below he is under only a 3 month block and so I strongly support at least this topic ban when he returns if not an extension of the block.--v/r - TP 22:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, an appropriate response to POV-pushing. Miniapolis 01:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban immediately, then site ban if SPI confirms socks as User:Robert McClenon, suggest a Checkuser for sleepers too. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support block. I had blocked the editor recently for warring with Doug. I was myself surprised the editor hadn't been blocked earlier for tendentious editing, and not just in one article. A block would work better here than a ban. Wifione ^Message 12:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

After reading the above, I went ahead & blocked the gentleman; I elected to do the work because I needed practice with the steps to block someone, & he clearly deserved it. However, standard offer applies. I assigned him a three month block only because the discussion was over in a little less than 24 hours; better to show a little leeway, just in case. And based on his interactions with other Wikipedians, I expect he'll rack up more points before the 3 months are over. -- llywrch (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry llywrch, but do you mean after the three months are over? As he can't do much if he's blocked. However, the block doesn't supercede the ban. I think we should still go ahead with the ban. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

He can appeal his block on his user page, which he still has access to. A reasonable person could, conceivably, successfully appeal his block. But I think his efforts will end differently. Anyway, I picked 3 months on my read of the consensus, which was clearly in favor of swift action; my actions were as an uninvolved Admin, & I gave him the minimum indicated by the consensus. If another uninvolved Admin feels the consensus indicated a longer block -- or an outright community ban -- instead, feel free to change the terms of his block. -- llywrch (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Our community ban policy does call for a minimum of 24 hours and you blocked after 25 hours so it is not an unreasonable time to close the discussion. Though I do think that consensus is still developing as to the duration of the ban. I think time will tell if the block duration is okay as is or if it should be modified. Chillum 22:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no opinion as to block duration (I'm frankly not sure there was consensus for a block but I'm not about to argue that), but the ban should be indefinite. TFC was POV pushing and edit warring on this article for two years, in spite of multiple warnings on the matter. It might not sound particularly civil of me, but I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of TFC contributing positively to that article at least for the foreseeable future. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheFallenCrowd is now closed. There is no evidence linking TheFallenCrowd to any of the named accounts. Indeed, all of those accounts are hiding behind proxies, whereas TheFallenCrowd is not. Thus, the only thing left is the block evasion. I believe the non-technical evidence that TheFallenCrowd used an IP to evade his block is strong. However, that is a far cry from being a sock master with multiple accounts. Therefore, I would appreciate it if people would stop accusing TheFallenCrowd of socking because without evidence it's inappropriate. None of this prevents the community from implementing a topic ban. None of this prevents the community from blocking TheFallenCrowd for reasons other than sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We still need to close this before it gets archived. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Anybody want to close this? I think we've been open more than long enough. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:24, 29 August 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.

Inappropriate conduct by administrator User:The Rambling Man

Summary

Extended content

In summary, the admin User:The Rambling Man has made many uncivil and/or vulgar remarks. The ones I've seen are on the Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates & Wikipedia talk:In the news. Among the worst remarks the user has made towards other users are: "Wow, you need to get back to your happy pills...Your tirade is noted, and reflects nothing other than your own repressed inadequacies I'm afraid...But hey, who needs any kind of good faith when "Jayron" is tearing someone a new hole?" [[90] In closing an ITN nomination discussion: "Post-posting support for RD glad I don't drink or take hallucinogenic drugs while working on Wikipedia!!!!" [91] "You, on the other hand, are doing nothing but whinge. If you actually cared about the things of which you moan, you would actively help do something rather than drop your bitch bomb and expect others to rush around placating you." [92] Wikipedia policy is that an attempt needs to be made to discuss issues with fellow editors. When I raised the issue on his talk page, noting that I would raise the issue here if he didn't stop, it was met with this response (edit summary: "be my guest"): "Go for it, I have little time for this. Whether or not you think Sca's ongoing plastering of links at ITN is right or wrong is entirely irrelevant to me. Of course, taking every single quotation you've dug up entirely out of its context will work wonders for you, I'm sure a visit to ANI will be a marvellous experience for us all. I won't be commenting, or even looking. Congratulations on your attempt to intimidate me. You are no longer welcome to post here, thanks so much." A few minutes later a message box at the top of the user's talk page was changed to: ""Oh dear, we're all feeling a little ... sensitive .... I feel a World's smallest violin coming on...." Shortly after, he deleted the discussion from the talk page...19 minutes after I raised the issue with him. Again, this is coming from an admin!! Besides an egregious violation of Wikipedia:Civility (one of WP's 5 pillars), The Rambling Man's behavior is also in clear violation of WP:Admin#Expectations of adminship. Since the policy in WP:Civility states that users should be blocked for uncivil conduct & personal attacks, I think The Rambling Man should be reprimanded & suggest that he be restricted from editing pages concerning "In the news".

Today's events

Summary: After seeing The Rambling Man make many uncivil remarks & a few personal attacks (detailed in next section) over the past few weeks, I noticed an opportunity in the past 24 hours to raise the issue of uncivil behavior with him.

Extended content

A few weeks ago, I started getting involved in commenting on nominees at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. User:The Rambling Man (an admin) is also a regular commenter on nominees. I had noticed this user make several inappropriate comments (documented below) in reply to other editors, which included profanity-laced replies, personal attacks, and other rude/uncivil remarks, but never took any action since they weren't directed at me. Today, another editor began a discussion ("ISIS/Iraq/Syria - ongoing", the revision linked to includes my remarks discussed below) on The Rambling Man's talk page regarding uncivil remarks made in the discussion ISIS/Iraq/Syria - ongoing (might be archived soon) at ITN/C I happened to be mentioned in that, so got a notification. Now, there was a little merit in his critique of User:Sca's actions and that discussion isn't a good example of The Rambling Man's incivility, but he could have handled it better and the remark "Better that you focus on the articles you wish to promote. It's not too difficult." seemed a bit rude. I was going through my watchlist and also noticed that The Rambling Man had just make a remark beginning "Calm the fuck down" in response to another user who also used profanity. Anyways, I had contemplate whether or not to raise this issue and so this seemed like a good opportunity to mention something about his behavior on his talk page (which I placed in the same section Sca started).

Evidence/listing of uncivil remarks/behavior made by The Rambling Man

Summary: List of remarks made by the user which are uncivil. Since I've bolded what I deem to be such behavior, you can skim this section.

Extended content

But the above was far from the worst of The Rambling Man's comments that I've seen. Before I get around to discussing his response to my remark, let me first list what comments The Rambling Man has made which (in my opinion & I think others will agree) amount to personal attacks and uncivil behavior (especially for an admin, which I'll discuss below). Emphasis added and links to ITN/C revision as of 15:08, 27 August 2014: "Calm the fuck down. I asked a simple question, as we have the Ongoing item covering Ukraine, why would we need an additional blurb? It's a reasonable question and doesn't warrant your own Ongoing point-making and swearing (although I can tolerate the latter more than the former)." ([93]) "Post-posting support for RD glad I don't drink or take hallucinogenic drugs while working on Wikipedia!!!!" (in closing this discussion) "Your "insight" is truly fascinating. So what are you going to do next? Hammer on some more, refuse to actively improve things, both or something else?!" (about 4/5ths of way down this discussion) "That's great. Perhaps User:Viriditas can visit there to get his daily dose of lulz rather than stomp around complaining (but doing little else) about the listings at ITN." (from [94]) "A few points for you. I don't have a "role" at ITN. I don't have a "preference for pomoting violence" (I assess consensus and occasionally post items). I do not promote "click-bait". I am not "promoting a fear-based control system". You, on the other hand, are doing nothing but whinge. If you actually cared about the things of which you moan, you would actively help do something rather than drop your bitch bomb and expect others to rush around placating you." (also from [95]) This user also seems to have a gripe about the turnover rate and what is featured in the ITN template. While this may be a topic for discussion, The Rambling Man has carried over this gripe when commenting on/closing nominations at ITN/C. The best example of this is in nominating and handling the Bárðarbunga nomination (the volcano in Iceland that many were concerned would erupt this past week). The purpose of ITN isn't just to feature current events, but that the articles have been updated with the new developments (some recurring events can be added once the respective article is updated without the need for discussion, but a volcano is not such an event). For the nominator's comments, The Rambling Man wrote (emphasis mine): "One for the whiners, something that, if it pans out as expected, will cause billions of euros to the aviation and insurance industries. Of course, the blurb could use work, the article certainly needs some work, but if we want some reasonable turnover to start up again at ITN, this is a start.... (or at least an attempt at one...)" Well, since there hadn't been any major effects from the volcano at that point (no signs of eruption on surface, only a small exclusion zone for air traffic and a small number of nearby villagers had to evacuate) several editors opined that the nomination should wait until (or if) the volcano caused any major issues. The Rambling Man replied to these editors with the following comments: "Comment agreed that waiting is conventional, but there appears to be a groundswell to start including things that aren't that notable or things that may or may not happen, etc. Since this is being widely reported, and is notable, it seems like a good candidate to get the ball rolling on such nouveau stories." Then a couple more "wait" votes and The Rambling Man adds: "Comment you don't think I know all this? The point is that we are being asked from various places and various whining types to get some actual news to the ITN section. This is making news already, impact or not. It's just a tester really to decide if we want to include news that is being widely reported but whose impact may or may not occur." The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC) User:Jayron32 responded to that remark with: "You know, pretending to "cave in" to people you call "whiners" smacks of disingenuousness; you clearly don't actually think this is a good story to post, and yet you keep pushing it in the face of opposition. This smacks of the WP:POINT behavior we've all come to expect of you: because other people appear to have differing opinions, you float a strawman attempt to concede to those different opinions, and then when your bad-faith suggestion gets shot down, you feel like you were right all along. You can stop this now; it's quite alright to allow people who think differently than you to think differently, and also if decisions get made that you wouldn't have agreed with, you can also allow them to just go along uncommented on, without acting like singular decisions somehow represent a tearing down of the entire society you've come to value, leading to the melodramatic levels of despair over the destruction of some vital part of our community you seem to think every such differing opinion represents to you. Just quit it." --Jayron32 21:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC) And The Rambling Man responds to that with what is in my opinion the most egregious remark that I'm aware of: "Wow, you need to get back to your happy pills. This is an attempt to float an idea to appease some sections of the community that believe we don't do enough to churn ITN, we're not keeping up with news etc. Your tirade is noted, and reflects nothing other than your own repressed inadequacies I'm afraid. (P.S. I clearly do think it's a good story to post as it most likely will disrupt a forthcoming trip I'm intending to make. But hey, who needs any kind of good faith when "Jayron" is tearing someone a new hole?)" The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC) When a user commented with a link to a news article that the volcano risk level was lowered and there was no sign of eruption, The Rambling Man responded "Good news, my trip may still be on!" I interpret that remark as snarky sarcasm given the user's attitude previously in the discussion.

User's response when I raised issue on his talk page

Summary: After raising the issue with the user, pointing out uncivil behavior, requesting he stop, and that I'd discuss the matter here (ANI), the user made no attempt to address the issues I raised including in his response "Go for it, I have little time for this...I'm sure a visit to ANI will be a marvellous experience for us all. I won't be commenting, or even looking." (edit summary: "be my guest"). The user changed a message box to "Oh dear, we're all feeling a little ... sensitive .... I feel a World's smallest violin coming on...." and deleted the discussion from their userpage just 19 minutes after I raised the issue.

Extended content

I mentioned above that I'd discuss later his response when I raised this issue on his talk page (first/second paragraphs, again see [96]). I noted in my comment that "You need to stop making personal attacks and extremely rude/disrespectful remarks to other users. If not, then I think a review of your behavior needs to be discussed at the Admin noticeboard" (this page). The Rambling Man's response was (emphasis mine): "Go for it, I have little time for this. Whether or not you think Sca's ongoing plastering of links at ITN is right or wrong is entirely irrelevant to me. Of course, taking every single quotation you've dug up entirely out of its context will work wonders for you, I'm sure a visit to ANI will be a marvellous experience for us all. I won't be commenting, or even looking. Congratulations on your attempt to intimidate me. You are no longer welcome to post here, thanks so much." (edit summary: "be my guest") Well, I'll let others judge whether I took "every single quotation...entirely out of its context". While no mention was made of me in the edit summary or change, his next edit (8 minutes later) changed a message box at the top of his talk page from "Standards are falling, I blame the kids" to "Oh dear, we're all feeling a little ... sensitive .... I feel a World's smallest violin coming on...." and 4 minutes later The Rambling Man deleted the discussion with the edit summary "remove various spams, junk, other odds and sods" (19 minutes after I added the comment).

Considerations since user is an admin

Summary: Since user is an admin, he should be held to a higher standard of conduct (addition:see admin conduct & accountability expectations). I note several relevant admin/Wikipedia policies which the user has little regard for, namely WP:Civility. Uncivil comments that prompted my remark to him are a major breach of conduct, but the response when I raised the issues are also a significant breach of admin conduct (no rebuttal while stating "You are no longer welcome to post here, thanks so much." & quick deletion is failure to communicate/address concerns of community).

Extended content

Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct states: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." Civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars, stating: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect" and (in Civility#Incivility) "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments...In cases of repeated harassment or egregious personal attacks, then the offender may be blocked. Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person." Furthermore, From Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for:" Of the five bulleted reasons, I think The Rambling Man meets two: "Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)" "Failure to communicate – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought)."

Conclusion/suggested actions

Summary:I think The Rambling Man's behavior is unacceptable of an admin. The user's behavior needs to be examined. As noted above, his actions have been in serious breach of conduct. I suggest that the user should be restricted from editing sub- & talk pages concerning Wikipedia:In the news.

Extended content

In my opinion, the Rambling Man's behavior is absolutely unbefitting of an administrator. Jayron32's comment quoted above alludes to a history of such behavior and there's probably more examples of uncivil behavior from this editor. I think at the very least this user should be reprimanded by other admins (whoever has authority to address such issues) for these remarks, warned not to continue such uncivil conduct, and that this user's activity is monitored to see that he doesn't continue behaving this way. I also think its reasonable to suggest that this user be restricted (given a cooling-off period) from working on any of the In The News pages (namely: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates & Wikipedia talk:In the news) or updating the ITN template. That said and given this user's lack of interest in discussing matters civilly (Sca's remarks, my comment, Jayron32's remark quoted above, his response to my comment) or positively participating in the Wikipedia community, statements that he'll refuse to participate in important community processes (stating in response to my suggestion of raising the issue here at ANI: "I won't be commenting, or even looking."), and refusal to offer even the slightest rebuttal to my comment, I also think that the removal of administrator status should be discussed.

AHeneen (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I recognize that you put in a LOT of work to put this together, but you really need to read WP:TLDR because very few people are going to take the time to read all of that. And because this is a volunteer project, if you want folks to care, you need to break it down.--v/r - TP 03:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Recently I visited ITN/C for the first time to comment on the Khmer Rouge tribunal news and I noticed this as well. TheRamblingMan's response was rather blunt, although I did the improvements to the articles based on his comment. At that time as well he had some clearly inappropriate commennts - similar to what the OP has listed above. It certainly felt like ITN/C is not a very welcoming place. However, I do think that ITN/C requires a "tougher" person like TheRamblingMan because some of the candidates are just poor and people tend to vote for sillier things as well - someone has to be strict about it. But there is no need to be rude or use language like that. --Pudeo' 03:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is probably WP:ADREV. MarnetteD|Talk 03:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@TP. I added a summary section to the beginning & a 1-2 sentence summary to each section. @MarnetteD WP:ADREV states that it is for administrators to request a review of their actions from others. It does not indicate that non-admins can request a review of an admin's conduct. WP:DRN states that "Please refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only." So this seemed like the appropriate place to make my complaint; however, looking through several policy pages, I've learned of the existence of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct which seems like the most appropriate place for this. I'll leave this here for now, but if others agree, I could add this issue there and possibly close/hide this one (with a link back here & place a link here to the new discussion).AHeneen (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any misuse of admin tools here. What does TRM's admin status have to do with this apparent civility complaint? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying the admin tools have been misused, but the principals of conduct & accountability are also important and relevant to this issue. From the latter section: "Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner...may be sanctioned...In the past, this has happened or been suggested for:...Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)...Failure to communicate - this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought)." I mentioned the first policy (conduct) when I raised this issue on TRM's talk page. Civility's lead states "[it] applies to all editors and all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians." (Note: I did not add the bold to "all").

I think it's important to look at the context of a lot of the above. TRM can certainly be blunt and offensive, but I find he is rarely the one to start it. For instance, the 'Calm the fuck down' comment referred to above was in response to, "For fucks sake, celebrity deaths and sports events breeze through, but huge world-changing events struggle. WTF is wrong with you all, ITN?" which borders on WP:NPA territory, IMHO. TRM's response was not exactly pouring oil on troubled waters, but it wasn't raising the confrontational bar, either. GoldenRing (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• AHeneen I am not trying to discourage the effort you've taken, but knowing TRM well, I suspect all this was not required. TRM takes a lot of effort on various fronts, and I think requesting him to not use words you might consider harsh, should work better than reporting here. He's not infallible. Yet, he does take the effort to correct wrongs when pointed out (and not threatened). Yes, you've told him to stop being rude, but the combination of do this or else sometimes pushes discussions to exactly an area which you wished to avoid. If you feel really wronged (honestly, the diffs you provide don't make me feel so), go for a request for comment. This place won't yield any result with this report. Wifione ^Message 08:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Although I don't endorse TRM's use of "vulgar" langauge there is actually no incivility here. GoldenRing has actually hit the nail on the head in that respect. Furthermore using ANi in this could legitimately be seen as an attempt to intimidate. While I see why you might have been offended I think you'll have an extremely hard time getting any traction for punishing any user (admin or not) for this. Civility in the way you (and many other reasonable people) understand it is thoroughly unenforcable on wikipedia. Furthermore crying "admin abuse" when in fact there is no use of TRM's status/tools hurts rather than helps your points--Cailil ^talk 12:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments...these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict." Furthermore, I'm not crying admin abuse (actions), but pointing out misconduct (interactions). I also don't understand how raising the issue here can be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate. There is an issue--TRM's behavior when dealing with editors he disagrees with--which needs a resolution. After mentioning the issue on TRM's talk page, he refused to discuss the matter & deleted the discussion 19 minutes later. DRN & RfM are only for content disputes, while this doesn't meet the minimum requirement for RfC (that at least 2 users have tried to discuss the matter). So from WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, ANI is the only place to raise this issue. I don't feel that (or understand how) raising a valid concern (with appropriate evidence) & seeking a means to resolution can be considered intimidation. AHeneen (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not defending TRM's language AHeneen but the fact is that there's no support for such a view of WP:CIVIL (and never has been in my experience) despite your (quite reasonable) reading of it. As you can see here TRM's conduct does not qualify as incivility in the eyes of the community. Indeed I would suggest that there is a world of difference between "rude words" and "being rude to another person". TRM was using rude words - which is not a breach of WP:Civil. As regards conduct issues telling somebody that you don't like their actions/attitude and that you intend to take the matter to ANI has often been seen as an attempt to chill a conversation and gain some kind of leverage. BTW I'm not saying you're doing that - what I'm pointing out is that this is how such actions are generally viewed by the community. And for the record I tend to 100% agree with Jayron's assessment of TRM's conduct but as I said trying to use TRM's admin status against him (in the way you have above) hurts your case rather than helps it--Cailil ^talk 19:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) TRM is a good technical admin, and understands the operation of ITN well. I appreciate his strident adherence to principles of article quality, and I do appreciate that he pushes for high quality articles on the main page. That being said, he tends to frequently descend into WP:POINT-making behavior; and on several occasions has shown that he has a hard time dealing with good-faith disagreements. He takes a "My way or the highway" approach to every disagreement, and if someone has a different opinion on a situation that he does, he takes it extremely personally, often descending into hyperbole; acting as though every good faith disagreement represents a major violation of standards, or the end of Wikipedia. I can think of a dispute from a few months ago where a disagreement with Newyorkbrad was taken WAY too far. I don't think TRM needs any formal sanction, but he does need to modify how he interacts with people, ESPECIALLY when there are good-faith differences of opinion; and he has to allow that sometimes his opinion is not always going to be accepted by consensus as a whole, and when that happens, he has to be OK with that. The problem is he rarely is. (post edit conflict comments) Calil raises good points too: TRM has not, to my knowledge, ever misused his status as an admin in any way: he's never used the admin tools in an inappropriate way, or used them (or the threat of them) to win battles with others, so there really is nothing about his status as an admin that needs to be called into question. Certainly, I have had conflicts with him, and I do take exception to the way he interacts with people when he is in a disagreement with them, but there's no issue with his role as an admin vis a vis that role. There's no concern of mine at all that he's using his admin status in anything but appropriate ways. --Jayron32 12:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Nonsence! TRM is a hound and a rotter, and he's going to be shot! However, before we proceed to the formality of sentencing the deceased, I mean the defendant, I think we'd all rather enjoy the case of the prosecution! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

  for those that are having trouble interpreting Lugnuts post here, see Poe's law. --Jayron32 13:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC) ---- And go and watch this, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC) heh, I got the Blackadder reference straight away, but the Poe is new to me - guess that's my application to Intellectuals 'r' us blackballed again... Doh. Begoon ^talk 16:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC) ---- Yep, Poe's Law was new to me too. Finally learnt something from this encyclopedia! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• The evidence of incivility is clear, and TRM should well be admonished for acting in such a manner. ArbCom has repeatedly found that admins must adhere to a higher standard than others, and it appears clear that TRM is not adhering to ArbCom principles here. That noted, there is little that can be done other than note displeasure here, any acts against admins generally require either extensive community discussion or actual review by the Arbitration Committee which has the authority to act in such matters. I suggest you read up on the arbitration processes on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

  Admonishment is a meaningless formality. He's already been admonished (that is, we've all told him what he's doing wrong, and how to clean up.) A formal use of same doesn't mean anything. The question is, has been, and always should be "Do we trust this person to use the three admin tools in an appropriate manner" For all of his faults, I cannot find any example of TRM misusing those tools, nor do I see any evidence he would. There are 2 discussions to be had here "Does TRM need to change how he handles conflict and interactions with others" and "Does TRM misuse his admin tools (deletion, blocking, protection). The first is a discussion that needs to be at at WP:RFCU, not here, and I don't see any evidence of the second. ArbCom wouldn't touch this because the community hasn't had the RFCU discussion. And there is no evidence that he is misusing or threatening to misuse his tools here. --Jayron32 14:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC requires that two users have raised the issue with the user in question. Is someone else willing to discuss this issue with TRM and try to resolve it? Several have commented that this has been an issue in the past. Can someone point out the relevant discussions? I don't mind raising the issue at RFCU, but it needs to meet RFCU's minimum requirements first. Also, I have made no accusations of abuse of admin tools. Rather, I have claimed that TRM is not following the conduct & accountability expectations of admins. AHeneen (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• ANI - > Interaction ban NE Ent 13:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• I see no incivility here, at least no more than what is usually thrown around at ITN, and certainly no misuse of admin tools. In fact, I appreciate the bluntness he brings to a process that can frequently be hampered with its own politics. --WaltCip (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If that's normal at ITN; then the atmosphere there has to change to be more constructive. According to WP:IUC rudeness alone is incivility. Besides, what kind of defence is the fact that there's another badly behaving user there? Someone acts bad, you're supposed to act bad too? Especially as a regular of the ITN and administrator you should keep calm. Remember that those threads are read by others too, no one wants to participate in a place like that. --Pudeo' 19:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  The incivility is quite clear. Saying "Oh, heck, they are always incivil at ITN" is not an excuse. You may "appreciate the bluntness" but others of us just see juvenile pottymouth and insulting behavior which would get other users blocked from editing. There should not be different standards of behavior for different editors. Edison (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

  The OP is far too long, so perhaps you wouldn't mind posting a couple of diffs showing the "juvenile pottymouth and insulting behavior"? Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The admin definitely is not acting to a higher standard and just encourages those of a similar temperament to misbehave. I think there's enough here for at least a warning on civility. (I don't even know if Admins can be given short blocks if they are particularly naughty.) Hopefully at least his ears are burning. And if it's necessary for User:AHeneen to come here again, hopefully s/he'll just share a much shorter list of the worst comments (as well as others complaints about them). Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Concerns on Brahma Kumaris article

Regarding Brahma Kumaris article. Last time a new editor jumped in and started deleting large amounts of RS based material I was told at WP:SPI under the first checkuser comment it could have been handled here as WP:Duck. There may also be other policies that relate to disruptive/suspect editing that are pertinent. For the sake of keeping things tidy, the concern relates to 2 fairly new editing accounts (though one is probably now abandoned). The first account in question (that hasn't been used since May) had only one stint of edits. The same revert was made by this banned user as their first edit too. Thanks to User:McGeddon reverting, that strategy failed and the account appears to have been discarded. The second accountin question has only edited on 3 separate occasions in August, all in relation to one topic. On each of those 3 occasions, substantial RS based content has been deleted - I thought the contribs would be the easiest way to see the wholesale deletions. A bot reverted this one as suspected vandalism, so the editor simply did a slightly reduced machete job. The rhetoric is concerningly similar to comments by these banned users/suspected socks [97] [98] [99] which may or may not be part of an even longer lineage of socks Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lucyintheskywithdada/Archive that stalk this article. The changes now being made appear to be piecemeal cut and pastes from the way the article was at the time this user was blocked. The user openly uses multiple accounts, here creating a new account to edit their talk page because their access was removed from the old now blocked account. I don't usually like to suggest blocking people, but it's hard to see either of these accounts contributing to Wikipedia. My hope was to get this nipped in the bud before either of the accounts get established and resume a path of disruptive editing. The way User:Truth_is_the_only_religion edits, they are clearly not new to Wikipedia which raises the question of why they are not using their previous account. Their username doesn't suggest they have the most openminded approach to editing religious/spiritual topics. I have stalled posting here for a few weeks to see if anything useful came out of the account, but now consider that highly unlikely. Advice/suggestions most welcome. Regards and thanks Danh108 (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you think you have sufficient basis to file a sockpuppet investigation that would probably be an appropriate step to take. Not really sure what else to say based on the information given.John Carter (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John Carter. I can try that. However I remember last time User:Adjwilley raised a sock he was advised by TParis that it would have been better handled here as WP:Duck. I can't get the exact diff because it has been archived, but it is in the checkuser comments here [100]. It's a bit worrying if old users can just waddle back in with the same quacking and resume their disruptions...each block makes them older and wiser about how to work the system too.Danh108 (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• It seems clear to me that the account is not new, but User:JamesBWatson's comments here are definitely worth reading. Perhaps the account should be blocked per WP:CGTW #14 :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Well Adjwilley, maybe I am getting a bit cynical :'( I do appreciate this users sense of humour though - they always choose great usernames. My favourite was Lucy in the sky with Dada (Dada is a name for the BK co-founder). Reading JBW's comments it looks like I may have been premature in posting here....anyway, it's nice to be part of a forgiving community...maybe the editor has put aside their battleground mentality I'm wrong about this editors connection to past Wiki accounts. Nice to know there are people keeping a watchful/experienced eye on things :-) CheersDanh108 :(talk) 17:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to dearchive this, but I couldn't answer the previous days. I must confess I can't fully understand the admin decision. Adjwilley says the account is clearly not new, which means clearly a sock, and the behavior and edits are identical to User:Januarythe18th, an indefinitely blocked user. So could you please explain why the account is not blocked? Thanks. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Bosnian articles - help needed

Yahadzija (talk · contribs) has had some problems at hr-WP and moved here instead. They have since been creating articles about places in Bosnia etc and they are mostly gibberish, possibly machine-translated stuff reliant on circular references and non-English sources. I don't think there is much doubt that Yahadzija means well, although there may be a bit of a WP:RGW situation when it comes to places where alleged atrocities occurred. Some of us have been trying to rein in the excesses and some of the articles have been turned into at least reasonably literate versions (eg: I helped with Večići) but I think we're hitting a real competence issue here and the patience of people such as @Bgwhite: has been sorely tested. There are also real concerns regarding whether or not the third-party sources are being correctly used: I have in the past tried to find some competent speakers of languages in the region in the hope of improving communications and sorting out the poor phrasing etc in articles but I've drawn a blank there.

Can anyone help with a way forward here? Are there in fact some active contributors who speak the language(s) being used in the sources? Can anyone determine why it was that they ran into trouble at hr-WP and, more importantly, whether that might have any bearing on what they are doing here? - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Surtsicna speaks Bosnian. So, they could help with the sources. I asked Surtsicna to talk to Yahadzija, assuming Yahadzija knew Bosnian. Yahadzija doesn't. Yahadzija is blocked on the Croatian Wikipedia and blocked on the Bosnian Wikipedia. Thru a very rough Google translation on his Bosnian talk page, it appears he was blocked for personal attacks. Yahadzija also copied references, didn't use references that backed up what was being sourced and couldn't spell. Again thru Google translation, on the Croatian Wikipedia, Yahadzija was blocked for personal attacks. He also had problems with references and troubles writing Croatian. So long story short, Yahadzija doesn't know English, Bosnian or Croatian. He has troubles with referencing on all three Wikipedias. Bgwhite (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I find this to be a very sad situation but I'm struggling to see a way out of it. Sitush (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is Yahadzija's response. I'm not entirely sure as the response doesn't make sense. Yahadzija does start a new talk discussion when replying to another message. Bgwhite (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

He has replied to Surtsicna. 80.132.112.49 (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

IP making gross WP:BLP violations.

Dayalbagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

24.125.121.9 (talk · contribs), who claims to be "familiar with wikipedia policies" [101] seems nevertheless intent on repeatedly violating said Wikipedia policies - initially by restoring material previously added to the Dayalbagh article a year ago, concerning an alleged murder, which was deleted for multiple reasons - not least because it was sourced to scans posted on facebook, misrepresented sources, reported allegations as fact, and was self-evidently using the Dayalbagh article as a coatrack (my deletion from a year ago [102] - identical to the material added twice by the IP [103][104]). Having engaged this contributor once more (after removing said material, which was then restored by the IP, only to be removed again by another contributor), and tried to explain the problems again (though I strongly suspect he current IP is the same person who posted the policy-violating material in the first place) the IP is now attempting, by deliberate misrepresentation of my words, to imply that I have agreed to the inclusion of this material - and worse, has used the talk page to assert that a suspect for the murder is guilty [105] (there as has yet been no trial), and that the connections between this individual and Dayalbagh make inclusion of this alleged murder in a section they had labelled 'controversy' legitimate. Given this IP's complete refusal to comply with elementary WP:BLP policy, a complete failure to actually address the numerous problems with the proposed content, and general tendentious and argumentative behaviour, combined with what is self-evidently a non-neutral approach to a difficult subject, I have to suggest that a block is necessary - if only so to ensure the IP actually actually reads the policy s/he claims to be complying with, and understands that using Wikipedia talk pages as a place to make assertions about an unconvicted individual being guilty of murder (along with multiple unsubstantiated allegations concerning other named individuals) will not be tolerated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

If someone connected with the institution has been arrested for something, that could be stated, but it shouldn't go any farther than that at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not posting here for advice about content - I am reporting a contributor who has repeatedly violated policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no question he's coatracking the article to make it about this alleged murder. But a total whitewash doesn't seem appropriate either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in a discussion about article content here - the issue at hand is a contributor who has grossly violated Wikipedia policy on living persons. If you want to comment on the article, you know where the talk page is - though I suggest you actually read up on the matter first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Was this resolved at the BLP noticeboard, or is it still an open issue there? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

AS far as I am aware, there have been no recent discussions on the BLP noticeboard - and in any case, this requires admin action, and should be dealt with here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like a content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that comment, I have a half a mind to call for you to be blocked too - for trolling and/or gross stupidity. The IP has repeatedly violated WP:BLP policy by asserting on the article talk page that an unconvicted individual had carried out a murder. There is no 'content dispute' involved there. It is a gross violation of Wikipedia policy, as anyone with an ounce of sense can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Given your recent arguments about alleged BLP violations in lists which weren't actually BLP violations, it raises the question of whether you can properly judge a BLP violation. Hence, your own behavior is under scrutiny as well. Now, it looks like there is coatracking in that IP's post. But that doesn't mean that everything in the post is factually incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to suggest that an assertion that an unconvicted named living individual is guilty of murder is not in fact WP:BLP violation? If so, I am going to propose that you be blocked indefinitely on WP:COMPETENCE grounds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Andy, calm down, they are pushing your buttons....

If you want the IP blocked, I suggest:

1. restore the part that is actually sourced to RS, citing the sources
2. ask again that the IP is blocked
3. watch how Baseball Bugs has to shut up because you removed his only argument

--Enric Naval (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry? You are asking me to engage in some sort of bargaining before a contributor is blocked for asserting on the article talk page that an unconvicted individual had carried out a murder? No way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The alleged murder really has nothing to do with the institute itself, thus it does not belong anywhere in that article. A woman was killed in a research facility at Yale a few years ago, but Yale University itself has no mention of the incident. If someone feels strongly that the incident is notable, then the Murder of Neha Sharma (with competent, WP:BLP mindful people having an eye on it) would be the route to follow. One curious thing I note is that an actual source for the incident, the Times of India, reports on the story in much the same sensationalist manner as the IP carries on. I was rather surprised to see such detail divulged from a police official, and such sweeping language about the suspects. Is this a cultural divide, perhaps? Tarc (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup - though it should be noted that the IP was adding this to the article on Dayalbagh, not the one on the Dayalbagh Educational Institute. I made exactly the same point about creating a (properly-sourced) article on the murder itself, if it could be shown to be noteworthy. The IP didn't however respond to this - I'll refrain from suggesting why. As for the Indian press, it does seem rather more prone to repeating allegations as fact than most other English-language sources - though that is no reason for us to do the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Enric Naval, given that there have been no convictions, I'm concerned about the controversy section that was added[106] telling readers that named individuals were arrested, using a scan[107] to back Media reports claim that Dayalbagh's administration tried to destroy evidence on the crime scene and had plans to dump Neha's body in the bushes of Lalgarhi to hide the murder.[11]" which also looks like a BLP violation and uses a source we can't verify - does anyone here know what the source is for the scan and can verify it and quote what it says in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, OK, now I get why you were complaining so much. It's undue weight in the organization's article and in the institute's article. And the "scan" source is specially atrocious. That looks like a home-made leaflet, not an actual newspaper. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If you think that scanned 'source' was bad, what about this one [108] A completely unidentifiable and unverifiable scanned copy of something-or-other, being cited for an assertion that "Dayalbagh's guru" was directly involved in a cover-up. The IP (who insists that s/he is familiar with Wikipedia policies) of course insists that "the sources are reliable"... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• I've dipped into the text the IP has been trying to edit war into the article here. The sentence "the doctors who did her post-mortem did not examine her body for sexual assault" is sourced to [109], which says no such thing. The next sentence, "Media reports suggest that they were pressurized to not do this", isn't sourced at all. It really won't do. Not sourcing a sentence about "media reports" is just weird, and when the "this" it refers back to — doctors failing to examine a body — is itself unsupported, it becomes more weird. This single example shows tendentious editing at its worst. There's more: WP:COATRACK, repeatedly stating on the talkpage that a named individual has committed murder when there has been no trial, and the IP's timewasting on the talkpage is pretty disruptive too (making a big deal of the use of the term "colony" is pure deflection). I've blocked for 48 hours for BLP violations and disruption. I'd say that's conservative. If anybody thinks it's too conservative (I don't do much BLP blocking), please feel free to extend the block. Bishonen | talk 12:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC).

• P.S. As for the account that added the same material in 2013, I daresay Andy is right that it's the same person. But it doesn't really matter. The account stopped editing on 15 July 2013 and is not blocked or banned; the IP started more than a year later. Not a problem. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC).

• Is any part of the story verifiable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a question for the talkpage, not for ANI. Bishonen | talk 00:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC).

I object to Grumpy taking the meataxe approach, as he did with the recent issue of lists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Roger Ailes

Someone who may be close to the subject has more than once blanked the criticism section of this page. The blanking was reverting with little discussion by User:NQ and User:JayJay. I don't particularly want to name (nor shame) the person who made the removals, so I ask that people here stay sensitive to such things (especially in case the person is a minor).

Regardless, I opened a thread at BLPN here which was entirely ignored. I am asking the community and those familiar with BLP please take a look at the criticism section to make sure it conforms to our standards and to the standards of being fair to the subject. (FYI, I do not take a position on this; I am only a person who stumbled upon the issue). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I just did. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Criticism sections generally become troll magnets over time by encouraging the addition of every single negative item that can be cited, giving undue weight. It is much better to integrate negative and positive material in a more organic way. Since the criticism section in question (surprisingly) contains only one criticism, perhaps this can be integrated more holistically into his bio? DocumentError (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this revert [110] is improper, as it removes reliably sourced information, but the citation added is a good thing. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that! What DocumentError said. I suspected that the section had some legitimate points but that it might have coatrack issues. But I admit I could be wrong either way (I'm not as experienced with article content as most on this board). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Sarabveer

I need help in dealing with User:Sarabveer. He has copied a full article from some other Non-Wikimedia wiki and is pasting in article Akhand Kirtani Jatha. The pasted text is available at many other websites under copyright law. Initially I was not aware of that, but since text was POVy, unsourced, and full of weasel words. I tried to engage him on talk page of discussions. But he is barely listening, ignoring WP:BRD and is persistent with his version. To avoid copyright, he has changed few words, but it is still case of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. The POV issue has also not be solved. I will appreciate, if someone could intervene and explain him the policies. Also if some admin could revert to the copyright free version and fully protect the article. I have reverted his edits couple of times, but he is edit warring. In the meantime, he first submitted his version as separate article at AfC (which was rejected and immediately deleted due to copyright). Then he made a new article Akhand Keertani Jatha, which is now redirect to original article. He also made a personal attack. I have tried to talk with him at Talk:Akhand Kirtani Jatha User_talk:Vigyani#AKJ User_talk:Sarabveer#Why --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

In reference to the accusation of a personal attack, this seems more like a run-of-the-mill insane comment than a personal attack or WP:CIVIL issue. There is no policy against acting in a generally off-kilter manner. I withhold input on the other issues. DocumentError (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not copy a full article from another source, did you even read my article that I posted yesterday, completely different. And also, SikhiWiki is NOT copyrigted, so I don't kow what you are screaming about. I see no copyright issues with my article. Also, the old article asked for a "Expert in Religion." I am a Baptized Sikh who is currently in the AKJ. Vigyani says Im spreading propaganda, but I fixed that issue (well-known annoys him). Also, he has a problem with me put Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh. The "Bhai Sahib" was given by the 4 Tahkts at the time (there was no 5th one). Also, the old article has obvious errors, just as AKJ being AJK. Also, my article had many references that your fake websites under copyright don't have. My article is fine as is. Sarabveer (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

SikhWiki in under GNU Free Documentation License, so I see no copyright issues what-so-ever. Sarabveer (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you stop edit waring ? Few editors other then me have reverted your edits. About copyright issue, I read your version, thats why I am telling you that it suffers from Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Which it will always do as long as you start from that preachy version. That kind of text only suits highly POVy SikhWiki. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 13:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You cannot copy content covered by the GFDL only to wikipedia for a few years now. Content needs to be licenced under the CC-BY-SA or compatible licence at a minimum. There are also some general things you should do when copying from other sources. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Copyrights at least before contributing further. Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion by Frimoussou

Mardochee1 (talk · contribs) seems to be an obvious sockpuppet of Frimoussou (talk · contribs), who was active during the period of the latter's block. Both have been engaged in edit wars in multiple LGBT-themed articles (like: Torquato Tasso, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Luigi Settembrini, etc.) and this edit actually gives it away. --85.118.226.35 (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

1 - this should be raised on WP:SPI where more and better resources exist to address this type of thing, 2 - it seems suspect and vindictive for you to raise this issue at all after Mardochee1 previously cautioned you on your Talk page for IP sockpuppetry, 3 - claiming another user has been involved in edit wars should be accompanied by a diff to the positive results of a 3RR complaint, otherwise you are unfairly forcing the accused to prove a negative, 4 - while there are broad similarities to Mardochee1 and Frimoussou's edit patterns, and the former even protested the latter's block, none of this is sufficient, IMO, to assert unambiguous connection; to avoid unfairly blocking an innocent editor for socking, this really requires a CheckUser, which can only occur on SPI DocumentError (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe you're getting me confused with a different anonymous editor (the one from Italy): I personally didn't get any warnings from Mardochee1. Almost all of his contribs seem to be intersecting with Frimoussou's, and his latest activity started on August 23, exactly the date when Frimoussou was blocked. Frimoussou also supported his point of view in a discussion, and the message style of the two is very similar. --85.118.226.35 (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right; sorry, it's hard to keep track of strings of digits as opposed to userids. Anyway, I think you should bring this up at WP:SPI. DocumentError (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Jakobrots500 (talk)

I would like to report disruptive editing of this user on Massachusetts road articles, in particular Interstate 95 in Massachusetts. This user has been adding unsourced information to the Exit list and has been reverted many times. I took time to go through reliable references [111] to settle on the content, but this user has not stopped adding such unverifiable information. I have reached out to the user for a discussion, but requests have been ignored. The user also did not respect a standard at WP:RJL on other articles, but the article mentioned above is the most apparent.

Diffs demonstrating disruption after references were added: [112], [113], [114], [115] Chinissai (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Some mobile users appear to completely miss the notification system (despite the big red number), or otherwise seem to think we can't block them. Inability to read messages and refusal to read messages don't really have different effects on the community, but because there's the chance he simply doesn't know what the big red number at the top of the screen is, a block shouldn't more than 24 hours. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced information is not the same as unverifiable information. It perfectly OK to add unsourced information, as long as it is verifiable. And indeed if we can't verify it after consulting the user (who in this case is not responding), we remove it, and inform the user (exactly as Chinissai did, of course). If they continue to add it back that is disruptive - I'm not sure from the description above if they are re-adding the same information.

Having said that the pattern of making many edits, being reverted, and carrying blithely on, perhaps using as a reference an outdated US road atlas of some type, is disturbing.

It is important to contact this editor, who may have more than one account. I notice that User:RyGuy012 has an email contact set up. This might be the next best step, if they are confirmed to be the same person.

Clearly if they do not engage, and continue to make only edits which are reverted they will be likely to end up blocked, and sooner rather than later.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC).

Thanks to Ian and Rich for your comments. Sorry for the potential mixup of terminology. The user has been adding information (in this case, destinations) without citing a reference; I gather this is unsourced information. When I tried to verify these destinations with Google Street View, these additions do not follow WP:RJL that the destinations should reflect the actual signs on the road; I gather this is unverifiable information. In other words, this user has been adding unsourced information that is unverifiable. I hope this clears up any confusion. As of now, the user has not added more edits to any more articles since the first reporting. I will keep you posted if the incident resumes. Chinissai (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Tag Clubbing (disruptive behavior)

Shrike has been using discretionary sanctions warnings as a kind-of cudgel. In the last 40 days he has welcomed new contributors to Israel-Gaza dispute articles with the discretionary sanctions tag no less than eight (8!) times ([[116]], [[117]], [[118]], [[119]], [[120]], [[121]], [[122]], [[123]]), against Gire 3pich2005, Kingsindian, Johorean Boy, Zaid almasri, ZxxZxxZ, Maurice Flesier, and others. As a demonstration of how non-AGF the use of these tags is, in my own case he slapped a discretionary sanctions tag on my talk page, even though I'd never actually made a single edit to any Israel-related article! (The tag was applied after I offered a comment [[124]] in a Talk page discussion on 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict.)
Even though tags and templates carry no official force, the reality is they can be intimidating to new editors and stifle contributions. The fact that he has been slapping them on the pages of people who haven't even contributed to an article - but have simply made a comment in a Talk page that inclines him to believe their future contributions may not mirror his POV - evidences his underlying intent. Attempting to ID editors as future "adversaries" and then trying to stifle them by tagging their talk pages is absolutely antithetical to the spirit of collaboration and encyclopedia building. DocumentError (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't edit in this area of wikipedia, but in the area where I have an interest, there are Arbcom discretionary sanctions in force. Everybody who participates in those controversial and difficult areas should have been tagged with a notification. If you haven't been notified, it leaves a certain wiggle room if sanctions need enforcing against you, or anybody else. I've had two I think, and it wouldn't surprise me if Shrike, was in receipt of one as well. Don't sweat it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, however, Shrike has not been issuing the tags in blanket fashion, but as a targeted stick. I think the point is that the pattern of tagging that is occurring, by all appearances, is a preemptive attempt to deter contributions. In my case I have never contributed to these articles but was tagged after I left a Talk page comment disagreeing with a position of Shrike. Looking at the pattern of tagging Shrike has used, he has only tagged contributors with whom he has either been in conflict, or who have userboxes identifying them as ethnically Arab or Persian. This type of race-tagging is an unacceptable departure from normal standards of behavior which, itself, is an enumerated cause for discretionary sanctions. DocumentError (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Does Kingsindian and Maurice Flesier are Arabs or Persian?Yes they may have opposite POV but there is no policy to warn people of the opposed POV. --Shrike (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no cause to request another editor identify their race or ethnic origin. Everyone's contributions are equally valid regardless of background. DocumentError (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Where did I said otherwise?My response was a rhetorical question to your assertions that I warn only based on ethnicity which of course is not true and btw I have no knowledge of your ethnicity and I don't care just another proof that you are wrong.--Shrike (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Do not engage in obfuscation through misattribution. As you know, what I said is "he has only tagged contributors with whom he has either been in conflict, or who have userboxes identifying them as ethnically Arab or Persian." That is a matter of objective fact, verifiable by any reviewing admin through a glance at your eight tags in the last 40 days. DocumentError (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

People were sanctioned for their comments in talk space in WP:AE for violation of WP:NPA for example So in my view the alert was in order but if admins think that its not so I will strike my edit..Also you are not a new editor.If there will be a policy not to alert a new editors I willy happily follow it.Maybe the policy should be changed here is a recent case of some new editors too unhappy with such tag[125]--Shrike (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again, the point is not alerting new editors, it is your highly selective "alerting" of new editors in a manner indicative of an intent to use the tag as a cudgel, which is not what it's intended for; the fact you've now indicated you'll continue race-tagging and only modify your behavior if there is a general policy change seems to underscore your intransigence on this point. DocumentError (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I never said that I will "continue race-tagging" and I never did you accusation is baseless and violation of WP:NPA.--Shrike (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I've not got a dog in this fight but that tag looks like it would be particularly intimidating to any new editors. It should not be seen as a "pre-emptive strike" to try to scare people away from editing or to push a particular POV. Looks like the tag is being misused here. Little Professor (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe these tags were re-written, after another editor (an arb IIRC) used them a lot. I'm sure they could benefit from further improvement, and maybe a better process for notification. For example:

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Does not seem optimum to me:

This message is informational and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions.

Seems unambiguously better and maybe even This message is informational. would suffice.

IF the wording was such that it was purely informational partisan editors would be sending it to their allies, to reduce the chance of their getting sanctioned.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC).

Yet another Evlekis sock

Hi

Can we revoke talk access on User:This Trapster abuse is identical to every other User:Evlekis sock. Amortias (T)(C) 19:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Talk page access revoked. Monty₈₄₅ 19:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I dont suppose we can revoke the whole wave of them and just leave Evlekis incase he fancies appealing his blocks. Amortias (T)(C) 19:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Hatetokyobiatch79

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,

Can we blockUser:Hatetokyobiatch79 for [126] obvious abuse only account unfortunatley im not sure what page shes referring to otherwise id have thrown this to SPI, also reported to @emergency. Amortias (T)(C) 17:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) Refer to User talk:Passioncity. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That'd be it, was looking for a mainspace page not a user one. Amortias (T)(C) 18:39, 31 August 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.

Can someone please get Elizium23 to stop threatening me?

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

---

Can someone please get Elizium23 to stop threatening me? They keep inventing and escalating problems when everyone else is being pretty helpful. I don't appreciate being threatened every time they don't get their way, like when they tried to delete the article. Masioka (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is thataway also read up on WP:Boomerang, some of your edits have been disruptive and there appears to be a lack of wiling to provide reliable sources to back up your claims. Amortias (T)(C)

I'm attempting to get the threats to end, other people are already intervening to resolve the disputed content (all of it has been kept despite that editor's attempts to remove it and delete the entire article). I have been providing reliable sources the whole time. The other editor maybe doesn't like what they say, however the sources are reliable. Masioka (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not an ANI matter and the "threats" are warnings about disruptive editing. Please continue your conversation with Elizium23 at Talk:World Congress of Families or as Amortias suggests, take it to Dispute Resolution if you prefer. I'd hate to see this escalate into something that might actually warrant the attention of this board. Thanks.  Philg88 ^♦talk 18:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's more than a content dispute. It's a behavioral issue and I was inches away from my own ANI filing anyway, so let's have it out now. Masioka is a WP:SPA come here to POV push on one article, World Congress of Families. She has edit-warred with me, deleted a maintenance tag out of process, made a personal attack against me, and now she has taken to using the Talk page as a soapbox for advocacy of anti-conservative polemics and bile. It's beginning to border on copyright violation as she copy-pastes from sources, too. So she has within the space of a couple of days clearly represented to me that she is not here constructively. Elizium23 (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to wonder now, given the prominence of WCF on HRC's home page, whether Masioka is somehow associated with, and/or on the payroll of, the Human Rights Campaign. Perhaps a checkuser could determine that, or Masikoa's good faith declaration yea or nay on this page. Elizium23 (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, do you have any other evidence of a connection between the OP and HRC besides both not liking the WCF, which is something quite a lot of people dislike? Nil Einne (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's just a random accusation. Elizium, I think you need to relax. People are allowed to disagree with you without being site banned. Maybe lay off the templates for a while, too. Masioka is pushing an obvious POV, but it's not the end of the world. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Posting four (4!) "you may be blocked" templates to a users Talk page within a 24-hour period is beyond excessive and can have no logical purpose except to threaten and intimidate. While these templates may not be seen as either of those things to an experienced editor, to a new or novice editor they can often be misconstrued as official warnings. Any issues with copyright, etc., should be handled in an appropriate forum and not by harassing the violator. The templates are not designed to be used as a cudgel. DocumentError (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think NinjaRobotPirate is correct, I overreacted in this case. It is worth mentioning that I have gone through some stress recently in my real life and I'm letting off some steam right now. It would've been a good time to disengage and take a WikiBreak instead of pounding on the Twinkle so much. So to Masioka and the community, I apologize for my role in this incident. But I stand by what I said earlier, including the suspicion of WP:COI; the pattern and the coincedences fit the profile, that is all I can say at the moment. I have worked frequently with disruptive COI editing and have developed a feel for it. Of course, this doesn't really add anything even if it were true because COI editors are not prohibited from any kind of editing anyway. Elizium23 (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable and well-meaning apology. I've placed Masioka's Talk page on my watchlist, as an assurance to him, and I think this matter can now be wrapped up. DocumentError (talk) 02:38, 31 August 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:SSSRVsegda trolling Zolitūde shopping centre roof collapse

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.

---

They seem to have created the account for sole purpose of adding misinformation to the articles related to said event. There were some conspiracy theories going around right after the event, but nothing like this and seems that user is deliberately throwing around over the top nationalist insults and readily inventing new arguments based on what they are told. I did point out Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources once it became clear reasoning won't work, but this only resulted in links vaguely related to event being added and accusations of hiding "the truth" ~~Xil (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for nationalist trolling and conspiracy peddling. Acroterion (talk) 02:25, 31 August 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.

Threat?

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

---

I checked the history of List of current Home and Away characters earlier and I believe 5summer78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a threat against me here: [127]. I understand that they are not happy with me for undoing their edits, but unfortunately they kept trying to add unsourced information, even after I asked them to provide a source. I hope this was the right place to post this, please point me in the right direction if not. - JuneGloom Talk 16:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure looks like one to me. I'd rev-del that edit summary and indef that editor KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 16:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

He's blocked. Up to you if you want to report it to the WMF.--v/r - TP 16:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I revdel'ed the edit. While I think it's more than likely a user overreacting, I've contacted the emergency team as a precaution. Current policy encourages you to treat all claims as being serious and that volunteers shouldn't be making the judgement call. Often times these comments are nothing more than empty threats made in anger, but it's something that shouldn't be left to chance. Mike V • Talk 17:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your help. - JuneGloom Talk 15:17, 29 August 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.

Persisting disruptive editing despite dispute resolution

I have been contributing to the "Barlas" clan page on Wikipedia for years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlas Recently, an editor named nawabmalhi added contentious assertions to the page - perhaps because they support the contentious assertions made by the founder of his religion, as evidenced by comments made on his page by other editors on other similar matters. In my case he added the vague word "Persianized" to the "Turco-Mongol" ethnic heritage of the Barlas, because the founder of his religion claimed to be Barlas and claimed to be "Persianized" which was a highly contentious claim then, and now. It simply is untrue. The editor used a marginal book on the Persians in support of this assertion. This editor has also changed the description of the Barlas empire from "Central Asia" to "Greater Persia." This is like calling present day France a "Roman Province." Additionally, he threatened me and while essentially vandalizing himself accused me of such. I took this to dispute resolution and here was the result after an over 7000 word discourse (included at the end of my request):

WP:TLDR

Proposed solution[edit] I think the best solution I can prose, with the evidence presented here, is that the existing wording of the article remains. Unless I see any decisive evidence (as opposed toWP:SYNTH and sources failing WP:RS, I will close this shortly. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC) @Mdann52 NawabMalhi says "Overall we are in agreement" at the end of his last comment and so I suggest this matter be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebenoyon(talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC) On August 26 nawabmalhi went back on what he had agreed to and again changed the wording of this article, and essentially tried to create the same misleading impression he had tried before, by adding Persia, Persianization and such again in the lines following the ones he had tried to change earlier.

OMG, summarize instead of posting pages worth of text. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The original discussion can be found here. There was no need to copy and paste the whole thing. The closing admin did not side with you, he told you to quit bickering. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson Thank you for the link to the Archives. I have never been through this process before and was unable to locate it earlier. This is why I posted the whole sequence of events. Thanks to your link I have now removed it from here to keep the posting concise.

The closing editor did not think there was credible or adequate evidence to change the wording of the article the way this editor wanted. This was my position as well.

Proposed solution[edit] I think the best solution I can prose, with the evidence presented here, is that the existing wording of the article remains. Unless I see any decisive evidence (as opposed toWP:SYNTH and sources failing WP:RS, I will close this shortly. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It was agreed that the wording would not be changed.

@Mdann52 NawabMalhi says "Overall we are in agreement" at the end of his last comment and so I suggest this matter be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebenoyon(talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Since I started this thread someone who specializes in Persian studies has also entered into the picture and is independently supporting the same position that it is not accurate to call this ethnic group "Persianized" and has reverted this wording to the last stable version which is fine with me.

Others have also said this as you can see on page history but this editor keeps persisting, as is self-evident on the page.

I just wanted to highlight how this editor was back at it after the matter being resolved and wanted to bring this to the attention of someone with more experience than me on Wikipedia. Someone who knew the ropes and could look at it dispassionately. This is because I recognized that last time around I got sucked into responding to this editor's repeated comments in bold directed at me etc. This did turn it into bickering, as the closing editor pointed out. That said, in the final analysis he did not see any merit in changing the wording to what this editor wanted and that is all I was getting at. And this editor agreed to the same.

This time around, as I have learned from the last process I will not take it as personally as I did when this editor tried to essentially change the ethnicity of our people and then kept persisting endlessly regardless of information provided. Thank you for responding to me. Jebenoyon (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson The edit discussed on the dispute resolution page and the edit I did recently are not the same at all and the recent edit was actually the compromise I was willing to do with Jebenoyon on the dispute resolution page when I said: Overall we are in agreement. The thing I agreed to was that I would not write that Barlas as a whole were Persianized, since the references that I provided on the dispute resolution were based off of the Timurids and Mughals (who are branches of the Barlas) and did not say the Barlas specifically.(even though all the references used in the Barlas article currently are related to the Timurids or Mughals). I this is what I told user Jebenoyon:

1.the source which you gave does mention the Timurids but the mention of a Barlas ancestor does not mean the ancestor gave the clan prominence but instead to soley trace the roots of the timurids.
2. Read the sources I gave you which shows that Even Timur was a ideal Perso-Islamic ruler
3. The timurids specifically along most of the Barlas were definetley persianized I gave you 8 valid sources
4. But I understand your point that maybe some segments may not have personally this is my first time hearing this
5. Till I find a source that specifically mentions Barlas in general I will not write persianized;however I do think it is important to mention that Timurids and Mughals were persianized and will reference this with the sources I gave you
6. And PLEASE understand that persianization in NOT ethnic but cultural Read persianization and Turko-Persian tradition

7. Again I did not threaten anyone to be honest you threatened report me I told you not to Edit War and asked Mdann52 if their was forum were a more specialized editor(in this area) could look at the issue

To be honest I think Jenebeyon is doing disruptive editing by deleting clear, concise, specific and very reliable Referenced material with many sources. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson As per your comments earlier Ian I will not repost all my comprehensive responses to the above as I am sure you can see them for yourself in the archives. I not only addressed each of nawabmalhi's sources but provided many more corroborating my position.

The closing editor started out with the statement below, as you can verify from the archives:

Hi. I am Mdann52, and am a volenteer here at DRN, however this does not give me any specific powers. Looking into the history of the article, the dispute appears to center around this type of edit. As the material is sourced, the burden of proof is on Nawabmalhi to show that reliable sources use the term as well. Are you able to show this? --Mdann52talk to me! 09:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Nawabmalhi then provided his sources. Below is the closing editor's response, as you can verify:

You need to provide a source that uses it in this context; A quick skim read of these shows that none of them appear to use the work in the context that is being discussed; Are you able to provide a source using it that can be used to support your dispute arguement (refering to this particularly, not just the general use of the word?). --Mdann52talk to me! 14:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

nawabmalhi then went on with most vigorously presenting all his information and the end result, as you can verify, was:

Proposed solution[edit] I think the best solution I can prose, with the evidence presented here, is that the existing wording of the article remains. Unless I see any decisive evidence (as opposed toWP:SYNTH and sources failing WP:RS, I will close this shortly. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52 NawabMalhi says "Overall we are in agreement" at the end of his last comment and so I suggest this matter be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebenoyon(talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the solution was clear - that nawabmalhi had not met the burden of proof and the wording would not be changed. Now he is trying to go about it another way by changing the next few sentences.

I will address the changes nawabmalhi tried to make this time around:

Right above where it says on the page that the Barlas were a Mongol tribe that shared heritage with Genghis Khan, from the house of Borjigin, which always was and is still on the page, nawabmalhi tried to add a sentence about the Barlas "originating in Mogulistan," This is historically wrong - Mogulistan was a breakway Khanate that originated in the 14th Century - well after the Barlas were mentioned in the "Secret History of the Mongols" so this is provably factually wrong. Further, using "Mogulistan," which existed briefly 650 years ago, is similar to what this editor tried earlier by using "Greater Persia" instead of Central Asia. Mogulistan does not exist, just like "Greater Persia does not exist, and the Barlas certainly did not originate there. Then, he adds "Persia" into the mix again by saying like many other tribes settled in Persia and Central Asia -its the same thing he tried before but just done on the next few sentences - the end result is the same - the creation of the false image of the Barlas being "Persianized" in which regard he failed to meet the burden of proof last time in dispute resolution.

The other change nawabmalhi made to the page this time was based on one source as to where the Barlas clan lives today, as follows:

The Barlas clan is now spread out in Central Asia, South Asia, Middle East,Turkey, and the Caucasus region. Like many other Turko-Mongol Tribes settled in Persia and Central Asia Big History: From the Big Bang to the Present

You can see he Googled looking for validation of his pre-existing notion, which is a pattern if you see his sources which are basically Google searches like "Barlas+Persianization" etc. And for the record, there are many Barlas in North America, Europe and other parts of the world.

Barons in Scotland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barons_in_Scotland The Scottish Baron is the lowest official titled nobility in the United Kingdom. Unlike England's .... Alisdair John Barlas. Auchinleck

Barlas murder information finally released. - Mason City ... https://www.facebook.com/masoncitypolicescanner/.../58889875782765... MASON CITY — Tom Barlas Jr. claimed to have killed Satan as he left the family's Mason City home after allegedly stabbing his father, Tom Sr., to death July 18.

So there are Barlas worldwide, good and bad.

The point is when is a matter considered resolved? How many times can a guy keep going back and fiddling with things causing everyone to spend a ton of time - something most people get fed up with and walk away from - yet if that is what we do then it encourages this type of stuff.

Below is what another editor said, if you look at the history of the Barlas page, when nawabmalhi started fiddling with the wording to make it more consonant with his views:

22:56, 9 June 2014‎ Hibernian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,337 bytes) (+89)‎ . . (All these edits are unnecessary, reverting the article back to how it was in April. This wording is perfectly fine

nawabmalhi still reverted it back to his version again. It was after that I got involved and after a time consuming and draining process it was agreed, as shown above, that the wording would not be changed. So now he goes and changes the next few lines with factually wrong information as I have shown above. The depth of his research is evident - superficial google searches to validate what he wants to show - this is not academic research in my opinion.

Now, since I started this thread here, someone who specializes in Iranian and Oriental studies, and has contributed to the Barlas page for long, like me, has reverted the wording back even from what I had reverted it to and to before the time nawab malhi started playing with it. Here is what he said:

(cur | prev) 09:37, 29 August 2014‎ Lysozym (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,223 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (restoring last stable version; the Barlas were not fully "Persianized", only partially in terms of culture; and they were "Turkicized" Mongols and they were fully aware of their Mongol origin and identity) (undo | thank)

In conclusion Ian, I submit that the page is fine as is, and if every time we reach a resolution this editor goes back and fiddles with the next sentence, when will it stop? If he wants to change what has worked fine on Wikipedia by consensus until he came along, and has conflicted with 3 or 4 editors on the page in as many months, does he not need to meet the burden of proof? And in this case I submit he clearly hasn't, just like what the closing editor said in the last case. It is unfortunate he got annoyed with the bickering but he clearly stated that no changes were to be made to the wording and now this editor, after a few weeks, starts fiddling with it again. I believe this editor is abusing the process, is the one being disruptive, and wasting everyone's time with superficial sources he does not fully understand as they are based on goggle searches and therefore he presents them out of context and is simply interested in getting his version onto the page somehow. This needs to be addressed. Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebenoyon (talk • contribs)

@Ian.thomsonThe edit discussed on the dispute resolution page and the edit I did recently are not the same at all and the recent edit was actually the compromise I was willing to do with Jebenoyon on the dispute resolution page when I said: Overall we are in agreement
Now I'll answer all of user Jebenoyon's twisted accusations:
Dispute resolution Noticeboard:
1.The reason why Mdann said at first the sources were out of context were because they used Timurids and Mughals(a subset of Barlas) but later I explained to him that Timurids are part of the Barlas and his position changed
2.Then Jeneboyon argued that not all Barlas as a whole were persianized because only the Timurids were not the only Barlas
3. Then Mdann said that might be WP:SYNTH and I said I will not write Barlas are Persianized as a whole but it is important the only two Notable Subsets of the Barlas were Persianized which is undeniable historical fact and afterwards Mdann made a new proposed resolution.
My Edit:
1. Here is part of my edit with which Jeneboyon has contention with (different from dispute resolution):

The Barlas clan is now spread out in Central Asia, South Asia, Middle East,Turkey, and the Caucasus region. Like many other Turko-Mongol Tribes settled in Persia and Central Asia, many subsets of the Barlas such as the Mughals and Timurids were persianized and made created elaborate Persianate Court Cultures.

2.Now I have not done WP:SYNTH since the sources I use directly use the Timurid and Mughals and meet required burden of proof.
3.My references are valid written by credible historians and I provide the page numbers and use Google books links a reliable way to search through millions of books so that people can look at the references.
4. I sticked to my promise to not write Barlas in general are persianized but instead I am very specific and willing to provide even more reliable Sources if needed.
5. Jebenoyon cannot just remove historical facts that are referenced clearly and then blame the other user for disruptive edits
Other editors don't agree:
1.One of the editors Jebenoyon mentions is Hibernian this is what he restored it too:

The Barlas (Chagatay/Persian: برلاس Barlās; also Berlas; Mongolian: Barlas) were a Turkified Mongol nomadic confederation in Central Asia, later Persianized and were settled and assimilated in Greater Persia.

3.If Jebenoyon wants to go back to the version Hibernian restored (I am fine with it) but the reality is he will not
4. Then he mentions Lysozym who actually agrees with me that the Barlas were persianized culturally(persianization is only cultural anyway, there is no ethnic persianization)

Jebenoyon should not and cannot delete clear, concise, specific and very reliable Referenced material with many sources written by credible historians and I provide the page numbers and use Google books links. Jebenoyon cannot just remove historical facts that are referenced clearly and then blame the other user for disruptive edits.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

References

@Ian.thomson As you can see Ian, this editor goes on and on, arguing this way and that way and endlessly - this is what I got drawn into last time and this is why the closing editor was annoyed because he came back to a ton of messages directed at him.

All these arguments nawabmalhi is making, he made before, repeatedly, and then some. The closing editor did not feel they were adequate to change the wording the way nawabmalhi wanted. The whole issue was that nawabmalhi wanted to say the Barlas were "Persianized" and that they lived in "Greater Persia." At the end of it all, as the Archives show, the closing editor said

Proposed solution[edit] I think the best solution I can prose, with the evidence presented here, is that the existing wording of the article remains. Unless I see any decisive evidence (as opposed toWP:SYNTH and sources failing WP:RS, I will close this shortly. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebenoyon (talk • contribs)

This should have been the end of the story. Now the proposed edits nawabmalhi wants to make amount to the same thing - so he is essentially re-arguing the entire case with you, against what was agreed to - by parsing words. I brought this here for a review of his conduct in persisting to try and create the same impression after a resolution he agreed to against doing so - if you think this is OK for him to do then I guess the next step would be arbitration because I don't think he will stop unless there is a binding resolution on this - I think there is more than enough here for you to decide what the closing editor's intent was, what was agreed to, and what the current proposed changes amount to. Let me add in conclusion that the way the page is now is fine with me, and it was reverted to this version by Lysozym and not me. If you notice, there were no issues on this page until this gentleman entered the picture. Jebenoyon (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jebenoyon Sorry, you don't want me to respond when you bring me administrator incident board? (I have to) You cannot delete clear, concise, specific and very reliable Referenced material with many sources written by credible historians and with the page numbers and use Google books links. And I looked at the edit history you removed the referenced material not user Lysozym

@Ian.thomson I told Jebenoyon clearly at DRN I would not write Barlas in general were persianized But it is important to mention the only two notable Branches of Barlas(Timurids and Mughals) were Persianized. The edit discussed on the dispute resolution page and the edit I did recently are very different and was the compromise Jebenoyon and I reached at DRN. And meets the Burden of Proof, specific and are verifiable which cannot be deleted. @Ian.thomson and please read my previous responses to his allegations he continues to repeat stuff, so my posts get drowned out by his. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

References are not specific and do not meet Wikipedia guidelines. We have been through this with the dispute resolution process where the editor viewed all your references and said wording would not be changed and you agreed. Your current references are wrong and out of context. There is no reference to support Barlas originated in Central Asia and this is factually wrong – it says right in the body of the article that the Barlas were Mongols – some of them moved to Central Asia after its conquest – the grammar of the wording is wrong too. Reference 7 only states “In late Timurid Transoxiana the perfect ruler was a Persianized, Islamicized Turko- Mongol Aristocrat” – this is a far cry from saying the Barlas as a whole were Persianized. Reference 8 talks about the effects of some degree of Persianization of the Timurid rulers’ lifestyles, tastes and bureaucratic organizations but states they very much remained who they were. Again, this is a completely out of context reference. The Wikipedia dispute resolution page shows that the closing editor rejected all the arguments made by you and said the wording would remain the same to which you agreed. If you look at the history you did nothing for 3 weeks after the dispute resolution and then again went back and tried to change the next few lines with the same content on which you were overruled in dispute resolution. I have now asked for Administrator Assistance, where you have again repeated your previous arguments that were rejected by the closing editor, but since no one has responded yet you are now again trying to change the wording and using your own wrong arguments in support! I now asked a third party editor who has read a lot on this and he supports me too. Here is what he had to say. Hi and thank you for the message. I am not a scholar on the subject, but I have read quite a lot about it. Do not worry about the other user. Your criticism of his edits is correct. Stating that the Barlas - as a whole - were "Persianized", is wrong. The Barlas were an originally Mongol nomadic confederation and they were well aware of their Mongol origins and identity. Like many other Mongols, they were progressively Turkicized. Most of all, because back then, there was not much difference between Turks and Mongols (hence "Turko-Mongol"): they had the same appearance, had the same habits and even their languages were similar. It was only the ruling elite that was culturally Persianized in later episodes, such as the Timurids and Mughals. But they never lost their Turko-Mongol identity. It was not until the Mughal ruler Akbar that this clan fully gave up its Turko-Mongol identity and became Persianized. That was mostly due to Humayun's long exile in Persia as well as the great influence of Persian aristrocrats and scholars at the Mughal court. It was also due to Akbar himself who had no interest in Turkic or Mongol culture and was known as a great patron of Persian art and language. In later years, the Mughals became almost entirely Indicized. The last Mughal emprer, Bahadur Shah, was known as a poet of Urdu. Urdu had become the first language of the Mughals while Persian remained the language of court. Turkic and Mongolian had no importance and none of the Mughals was able to speak Chagatay Turkic. Regards. --Lysozym (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Jebenoyon (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Jebenoyon (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

[Illegitimate blanking] and [Vandalism] by User:Director

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:Director has removed large portions of text in the article Istrian Exodus, albeit the edits removed were supported by 3 different verifiable secondary sources (check via the diff below to get convinced). Director briefly mentioned that the edits in question would be forever rolled back. So I did not even try to revert Director's edit because previous experience has shown this would end in an edit war or at best in a lengthy discussion going nowhere.

Now, the issue is that I genuinely believe the edits in question are correctly sourced and indeed the only user disagreeing is Director. His bold blanking without any attempt to discuss is a sign of lack of respect to those who try to improve the articles on this project after a long work of research.

This is the article after all Director's modifications: [128]]. It looks Director is actively modifying the article, so he might continue removing more text. I would have no problem in seeing my edits removed if other sources where presented, but Director just removed what he does not like.

However, this was the article before Director's modifications: [[129]]

I have limited faith this ANI will be of any help. Director has been in similar situations many times and always managed to get trough unarmed. But one thing is clear: if this time he will again let free to edit at his likes I will not male the mistake to lower myself to his methods. If this is the way Wikipedia works I can only acknowledge it. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Silvio1973 for having the courtesy to report himself. In spite of having been warned numerous, numerous times not to misrepresent sources, both these specific ones and in general, the user not only persists in doing so - but is entirely unapologetic about his conduct and even considers opposition to be "vandalism".

Throughout Archive 3 of Talk:Istrian exodus you will find instances of Silvio1973 getting caught in dishonest referencing. He was specifically caught misquoting these same sources for this same claim - about a dozen times, and was warned not to do that (e.g. here). Just go to Archive 3 and ctrl-F 'Djilas' or 'Dilas'.

Yet here he is, reporting me for reverting his addition of the same nonsense yet again. As I explain (yet again) in the thread I posted, the quoted source refers to the statement in question as "the claim, later seconded by Milovan Dilas, used by Stalin to justify the expulsion of the Yugoslav Communist Party from the Cominform". This is used by Silvio1973 as supposed support for stating the said "claim" as a fact.

Further, the user posts primary sources (without attribution in interpreted form) as references for statements of fact. I.e. a disgraced Yugoslav official (convicted by the government) claims in an interview that he was sent to expel Italians, and this statement is used as support for "Yugoslav officials worked to expel Italians"... Nonsense like that. In vain do I point to WP:PRIMARY.

There is another source by Italian author Gaetano Rando, but #1 it can't be verified atm and there is simply a strong statistical likelihood of it too having been misquoted by Silvio; #2 Provided its not misquoted, its an Italian author representing the Italian point of view in this national dispute: it ought to be carefully handled with regard to WP:WEIGHT and WP:THIRDPARTY. Silvio1973 is not the kind of user that one can work with in this manner.

Personally I am just perplexed at Silvio1973's entire attitude in issues like this. As I said - not only is he unapologetic, he's the one who gets offended when his dishonest sourcing is pointed out. This just keeps on happening.. The user will wait a few months and just post the same stuff again. -- Director (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The edits are perfectly sourced. You removed them without discussing, as you usually do with other users. Now you start a lengthy discussion (as you usually do when you do not like an edits) to make things hazy. If this ANI is closed without any decision I will request a 3O or open a RfC. I do not comment on your behavior. This time I will have an egregious conduct. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No, they are manifestly not. No, I did not. As you yourself say, I opened a thread on the talkpage laying out once more the dishonest referencing. You're the one who, without discussion, again introduced stuff you knew was opposed. You can request whatever you like, you're not about to cite primary sources as if they're secondary, or misquote sources by referring to a "claim" as a fact. Impo you ought to be swiftly boomeranged for disruptive conduct. This is clear WP:TE with the agenda to present the Yugoslav government as responsible for the events in question. -- Director (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Can someone just have a look at this report or close it? The ANI report is silly but we do need 3O, Silvio1973 requested one but it was rejected on grounds of this ANI report taking place. If no sanctions are to be imposed, pls close the report and join in. One sane voice is all this needs, imo. -- Director (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes we need more voices. Dear Director, next time do not rollback sourced material without joining the talk page and you will see that no-one will ever think to file an ANI. Simply you cannot remove sourced material without discussing. This is close to vandalism. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:25, 1 September 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.

Bosnian articles - help needed

Yahadzija (talk · contribs) has had some problems at hr-WP and moved here instead. They have since been creating articles about places in Bosnia etc and they are mostly gibberish, possibly machine-translated stuff reliant on circular references and non-English sources. I don't think there is much doubt that Yahadzija means well, although there may be a bit of a WP:RGW situation when it comes to places where alleged atrocities occurred. Some of us have been trying to rein in the excesses and some of the articles have been turned into at least reasonably literate versions (eg: I helped with Večići) but I think we're hitting a real competence issue here and the patience of people such as @Bgwhite: has been sorely tested. There are also real concerns regarding whether or not the third-party sources are being correctly used: I have in the past tried to find some competent speakers of languages in the region in the hope of improving communications and sorting out the poor phrasing etc in articles but I've drawn a blank there.

Can anyone help with a way forward here? Are there in fact some active contributors who speak the language(s) being used in the sources? Can anyone determine why it was that they ran into trouble at hr-WP and, more importantly, whether that might have any bearing on what they are doing here? - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Surtsicna speaks Bosnian. So, they could help with the sources. I asked Surtsicna to talk to Yahadzija, assuming Yahadzija knew Bosnian. Yahadzija doesn't. Yahadzija is blocked on the Croatian Wikipedia and blocked on the Bosnian Wikipedia. Thru a very rough Google translation on his Bosnian talk page, it appears he was blocked for personal attacks. Yahadzija also copied references, didn't use references that backed up what was being sourced and couldn't spell. Again thru Google translation, on the Croatian Wikipedia, Yahadzija was blocked for personal attacks. He also had problems with references and troubles writing Croatian. So long story short, Yahadzija doesn't know English, Bosnian or Croatian. He has troubles with referencing on all three Wikipedias. Bgwhite (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I find this to be a very sad situation but I'm struggling to see a way out of it. Sitush (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is Yahadzija's response. I'm not entirely sure as the response doesn't make sense. Yahadzija does start a new talk discussion when replying to another message. Bgwhite (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

He has replied to Surtsicna. 80.132.112.49 (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

IP making gross WP:BLP violations.

Dayalbagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

24.125.121.9 (talk · contribs), who claims to be "familiar with wikipedia policies" [130] seems nevertheless intent on repeatedly violating said Wikipedia policies - initially by restoring material previously added to the Dayalbagh article a year ago, concerning an alleged murder, which was deleted for multiple reasons - not least because it was sourced to scans posted on facebook, misrepresented sources, reported allegations as fact, and was self-evidently using the Dayalbagh article as a coatrack (my deletion from a year ago [131] - identical to the material added twice by the IP [132][133]). Having engaged this contributor once more (after removing said material, which was then restored by the IP, only to be removed again by another contributor), and tried to explain the problems again (though I strongly suspect he current IP is the same person who posted the policy-violating material in the first place) the IP is now attempting, by deliberate misrepresentation of my words, to imply that I have agreed to the inclusion of this material - and worse, has used the talk page to assert that a suspect for the murder is guilty [134] (there as has yet been no trial), and that the connections between this individual and Dayalbagh make inclusion of this alleged murder in a section they had labelled 'controversy' legitimate. Given this IP's complete refusal to comply with elementary WP:BLP policy, a complete failure to actually address the numerous problems with the proposed content, and general tendentious and argumentative behaviour, combined with what is self-evidently a non-neutral approach to a difficult subject, I have to suggest that a block is necessary - if only so to ensure the IP actually actually reads the policy s/he claims to be complying with, and understands that using Wikipedia talk pages as a place to make assertions about an unconvicted individual being guilty of murder (along with multiple unsubstantiated allegations concerning other named individuals) will not be tolerated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

If someone connected with the institution has been arrested for something, that could be stated, but it shouldn't go any farther than that at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not posting here for advice about content - I am reporting a contributor who has repeatedly violated policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no question he's coatracking the article to make it about this alleged murder. But a total whitewash doesn't seem appropriate either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in a discussion about article content here - the issue at hand is a contributor who has grossly violated Wikipedia policy on living persons. If you want to comment on the article, you know where the talk page is - though I suggest you actually read up on the matter first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Was this resolved at the BLP noticeboard, or is it still an open issue there? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

AS far as I am aware, there have been no recent discussions on the BLP noticeboard - and in any case, this requires admin action, and should be dealt with here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like a content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that comment, I have a half a mind to call for you to be blocked too - for trolling and/or gross stupidity. The IP has repeatedly violated WP:BLP policy by asserting on the article talk page that an unconvicted individual had carried out a murder. There is no 'content dispute' involved there. It is a gross violation of Wikipedia policy, as anyone with an ounce of sense can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Given your recent arguments about alleged BLP violations in lists which weren't actually BLP violations, it raises the question of whether you can properly judge a BLP violation. Hence, your own behavior is under scrutiny as well. Now, it looks like there is coatracking in that IP's post. But that doesn't mean that everything in the post is factually incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to suggest that an assertion that an unconvicted named living individual is guilty of murder is not in fact WP:BLP violation? If so, I am going to propose that you be blocked indefinitely on WP:COMPETENCE grounds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Andy, calm down, they are pushing your buttons....

If you want the IP blocked, I suggest:

1. restore the part that is actually sourced to RS, citing the sources
2. ask again that the IP is blocked
3. watch how Baseball Bugs has to shut up because you removed his only argument

--Enric Naval (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry? You are asking me to engage in some sort of bargaining before a contributor is blocked for asserting on the article talk page that an unconvicted individual had carried out a murder? No way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The alleged murder really has nothing to do with the institute itself, thus it does not belong anywhere in that article. A woman was killed in a research facility at Yale a few years ago, but Yale University itself has no mention of the incident. If someone feels strongly that the incident is notable, then the Murder of Neha Sharma (with competent, WP:BLP mindful people having an eye on it) would be the route to follow. One curious thing I note is that an actual source for the incident, the Times of India, reports on the story in much the same sensationalist manner as the IP carries on. I was rather surprised to see such detail divulged from a police official, and such sweeping language about the suspects. Is this a cultural divide, perhaps? Tarc (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup - though it should be noted that the IP was adding this to the article on Dayalbagh, not the one on the Dayalbagh Educational Institute. I made exactly the same point about creating a (properly-sourced) article on the murder itself, if it could be shown to be noteworthy. The IP didn't however respond to this - I'll refrain from suggesting why. As for the Indian press, it does seem rather more prone to repeating allegations as fact than most other English-language sources - though that is no reason for us to do the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Enric Naval, given that there have been no convictions, I'm concerned about the controversy section that was added[135] telling readers that named individuals were arrested, using a scan[136] to back Media reports claim that Dayalbagh's administration tried to destroy evidence on the crime scene and had plans to dump Neha's body in the bushes of Lalgarhi to hide the murder.[11]" which also looks like a BLP violation and uses a source we can't verify - does anyone here know what the source is for the scan and can verify it and quote what it says in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, OK, now I get why you were complaining so much. It's undue weight in the organization's article and in the institute's article. And the "scan" source is specially atrocious. That looks like a home-made leaflet, not an actual newspaper. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If you think that scanned 'source' was bad, what about this one [137] A completely unidentifiable and unverifiable scanned copy of something-or-other, being cited for an assertion that "Dayalbagh's guru" was directly involved in a cover-up. The IP (who insists that s/he is familiar with Wikipedia policies) of course insists that "the sources are reliable"... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• I've dipped into the text the IP has been trying to edit war into the article here. The sentence "the doctors who did her post-mortem did not examine her body for sexual assault" is sourced to [138], which says no such thing. The next sentence, "Media reports suggest that they were pressurized to not do this", isn't sourced at all. It really won't do. Not sourcing a sentence about "media reports" is just weird, and when the "this" it refers back to — doctors failing to examine a body — is itself unsupported, it becomes more weird. This single example shows tendentious editing at its worst. There's more: WP:COATRACK, repeatedly stating on the talkpage that a named individual has committed murder when there has been no trial, and the IP's timewasting on the talkpage is pretty disruptive too (making a big deal of the use of the term "colony" is pure deflection). I've blocked for 48 hours for BLP violations and disruption. I'd say that's conservative. If anybody thinks it's too conservative (I don't do much BLP blocking), please feel free to extend the block. Bishonen | talk 12:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC).

• P.S. As for the account that added the same material in 2013, I daresay Andy is right that it's the same person. But it doesn't really matter. The account stopped editing on 15 July 2013 and is not blocked or banned; the IP started more than a year later. Not a problem. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC).

• Is any part of the story verifiable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a question for the talkpage, not for ANI. Bishonen | talk 00:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC).

I object to Grumpy taking the meataxe approach, as he did with the recent issue of lists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Roger Ailes

Someone who may be close to the subject has more than once blanked the criticism section of this page. The blanking was reverting with little discussion by User:NQ and User:JayJay. I don't particularly want to name (nor shame) the person who made the removals, so I ask that people here stay sensitive to such things (especially in case the person is a minor).

Regardless, I opened a thread at BLPN here which was entirely ignored. I am asking the community and those familiar with BLP please take a look at the criticism section to make sure it conforms to our standards and to the standards of being fair to the subject. (FYI, I do not take a position on this; I am only a person who stumbled upon the issue). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I just did. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Criticism sections generally become troll magnets over time by encouraging the addition of every single negative item that can be cited, giving undue weight. It is much better to integrate negative and positive material in a more organic way. Since the criticism section in question (surprisingly) contains only one criticism, perhaps this can be integrated more holistically into his bio? DocumentError (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this revert [139] is improper, as it removes reliably sourced information, but the citation added is a good thing. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that! What DocumentError said. I suspected that the section had some legitimate points but that it might have coatrack issues. But I admit I could be wrong either way (I'm not as experienced with article content as most on this board). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Sarabveer

I need help in dealing with User:Sarabveer. He has copied a full article from some other Non-Wikimedia wiki and is pasting in article Akhand Kirtani Jatha. The pasted text is available at many other websites under copyright law. Initially I was not aware of that, but since text was POVy, unsourced, and full of weasel words. I tried to engage him on talk page of discussions. But he is barely listening, ignoring WP:BRD and is persistent with his version. To avoid copyright, he has changed few words, but it is still case of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. The POV issue has also not be solved. I will appreciate, if someone could intervene and explain him the policies. Also if some admin could revert to the copyright free version and fully protect the article. I have reverted his edits couple of times, but he is edit warring. In the meantime, he first submitted his version as separate article at AfC (which was rejected and immediately deleted due to copyright). Then he made a new article Akhand Keertani Jatha, which is now redirect to original article. He also made a personal attack. I have tried to talk with him at Talk:Akhand Kirtani Jatha User_talk:Vigyani#AKJ User_talk:Sarabveer#Why --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

In reference to the accusation of a personal attack, this seems more like a run-of-the-mill insane comment than a personal attack or WP:CIVIL issue. There is no policy against acting in a generally off-kilter manner. I withhold input on the other issues. DocumentError (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not copy a full article from another source, did you even read my article that I posted yesterday, completely different. And also, SikhiWiki is NOT copyrigted, so I don't kow what you are screaming about. I see no copyright issues with my article. Also, the old article asked for a "Expert in Religion." I am a Baptized Sikh who is currently in the AKJ. Vigyani says Im spreading propaganda, but I fixed that issue (well-known annoys him). Also, he has a problem with me put Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh. The "Bhai Sahib" was given by the 4 Tahkts at the time (there was no 5th one). Also, the old article has obvious errors, just as AKJ being AJK. Also, my article had many references that your fake websites under copyright don't have. My article is fine as is. Sarabveer (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

SikhWiki in under GNU Free Documentation License, so I see no copyright issues what-so-ever. Sarabveer (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you stop edit waring ? Few editors other then me have reverted your edits. About copyright issue, I read your version, thats why I am telling you that it suffers from Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Which it will always do as long as you start from that preachy version. That kind of text only suits highly POVy SikhWiki. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 13:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You cannot copy content covered by the GFDL only to wikipedia for a few years now. Content needs to be licenced under the CC-BY-SA or compatible licence at a minimum. There are also some general things you should do when copying from other sources. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Copyrights at least before contributing further. Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion by Frimoussou

Mardochee1 (talk · contribs) seems to be an obvious sockpuppet of Frimoussou (talk · contribs), who was active during the period of the latter's block. Both have been engaged in edit wars in multiple LGBT-themed articles (like: Torquato Tasso, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Luigi Settembrini, etc.) and this edit actually gives it away. --85.118.226.35 (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

1 - this should be raised on WP:SPI where more and better resources exist to address this type of thing, 2 - it seems suspect and vindictive for you to raise this issue at all after Mardochee1 previously cautioned you on your Talk page for IP sockpuppetry, 3 - claiming another user has been involved in edit wars should be accompanied by a diff to the positive results of a 3RR complaint, otherwise you are unfairly forcing the accused to prove a negative, 4 - while there are broad similarities to Mardochee1 and Frimoussou's edit patterns, and the former even protested the latter's block, none of this is sufficient, IMO, to assert unambiguous connection; to avoid unfairly blocking an innocent editor for socking, this really requires a CheckUser, which can only occur on SPI DocumentError (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe you're getting me confused with a different anonymous editor (the one from Italy): I personally didn't get any warnings from Mardochee1. Almost all of his contribs seem to be intersecting with Frimoussou's, and his latest activity started on August 23, exactly the date when Frimoussou was blocked. Frimoussou also supported his point of view in a discussion, and the message style of the two is very similar. --85.118.226.35 (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right; sorry, it's hard to keep track of strings of digits as opposed to userids. Anyway, I think you should bring this up at WP:SPI. DocumentError (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Jakobrots500 (talk)

I would like to report disruptive editing of this user on Massachusetts road articles, in particular Interstate 95 in Massachusetts. This user has been adding unsourced information to the Exit list and has been reverted many times. I took time to go through reliable references [140] to settle on the content, but this user has not stopped adding such unverifiable information. I have reached out to the user for a discussion, but requests have been ignored. The user also did not respect a standard at WP:RJL on other articles, but the article mentioned above is the most apparent.

Diffs demonstrating disruption after references were added: [141], [142], [143], [144] Chinissai (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Some mobile users appear to completely miss the notification system (despite the big red number), or otherwise seem to think we can't block them. Inability to read messages and refusal to read messages don't really have different effects on the community, but because there's the chance he simply doesn't know what the big red number at the top of the screen is, a block shouldn't more than 24 hours. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced information is not the same as unverifiable information. It perfectly OK to add unsourced information, as long as it is verifiable. And indeed if we can't verify it after consulting the user (who in this case is not responding), we remove it, and inform the user (exactly as Chinissai did, of course). If they continue to add it back that is disruptive - I'm not sure from the description above if they are re-adding the same information.

Having said that the pattern of making many edits, being reverted, and carrying blithely on, perhaps using as a reference an outdated US road atlas of some type, is disturbing.

It is important to contact this editor, who may have more than one account. I notice that User:RyGuy012 has an email contact set up. This might be the next best step, if they are confirmed to be the same person.

Clearly if they do not engage, and continue to make only edits which are reverted they will be likely to end up blocked, and sooner rather than later.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC).

Thanks to Ian and Rich for your comments. Sorry for the potential mixup of terminology. The user has been adding information (in this case, destinations) without citing a reference; I gather this is unsourced information. When I tried to verify these destinations with Google Street View, these additions do not follow WP:RJL that the destinations should reflect the actual signs on the road; I gather this is unverifiable information. In other words, this user has been adding unsourced information that is unverifiable. I hope this clears up any confusion. As of now, the user has not added more edits to any more articles since the first reporting. I will keep you posted if the incident resumes. Chinissai (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Tag Clubbing (disruptive behavior)

Shrike has been using discretionary sanctions warnings as a kind-of cudgel. In the last 40 days he has welcomed new contributors to Israel-Gaza dispute articles with the discretionary sanctions tag no less than eight (8!) times ([[145]], [[146]], [[147]], [[148]], [[149]], [[150]], [[151]], [[152]]), against Gire 3pich2005, Kingsindian, Johorean Boy, Zaid almasri, ZxxZxxZ, Maurice Flesier, and others. As a demonstration of how non-AGF the use of these tags is, in my own case he slapped a discretionary sanctions tag on my talk page, even though I'd never actually made a single edit to any Israel-related article! (The tag was applied after I offered a comment [[153]] in a Talk page discussion on 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict.)
Even though tags and templates carry no official force, the reality is they can be intimidating to new editors and stifle contributions. The fact that he has been slapping them on the pages of people who haven't even contributed to an article - but have simply made a comment in a Talk page that inclines him to believe their future contributions may not mirror his POV - evidences his underlying intent. Attempting to ID editors as future "adversaries" and then trying to stifle them by tagging their talk pages is absolutely antithetical to the spirit of collaboration and encyclopedia building. DocumentError (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't edit in this area of wikipedia, but in the area where I have an interest, there are Arbcom discretionary sanctions in force. Everybody who participates in those controversial and difficult areas should have been tagged with a notification. If you haven't been notified, it leaves a certain wiggle room if sanctions need enforcing against you, or anybody else. I've had two I think, and it wouldn't surprise me if Shrike, was in receipt of one as well. Don't sweat it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, however, Shrike has not been issuing the tags in blanket fashion, but as a targeted stick. I think the point is that the pattern of tagging that is occurring, by all appearances, is a preemptive attempt to deter contributions. In my case I have never contributed to these articles but was tagged after I left a Talk page comment disagreeing with a position of Shrike. Looking at the pattern of tagging Shrike has used, he has only tagged contributors with whom he has either been in conflict, or who have userboxes identifying them as ethnically Arab or Persian. This type of race-tagging is an unacceptable departure from normal standards of behavior which, itself, is an enumerated cause for discretionary sanctions. DocumentError (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Does Kingsindian and Maurice Flesier are Arabs or Persian?Yes they may have opposite POV but there is no policy to warn people of the opposed POV. --Shrike (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no cause to request another editor identify their race or ethnic origin. Everyone's contributions are equally valid regardless of background. DocumentError (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Where did I said otherwise?My response was a rhetorical question to your assertions that I warn only based on ethnicity which of course is not true and btw I have no knowledge of your ethnicity and I don't care just another proof that you are wrong.--Shrike (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Do not engage in obfuscation through misattribution. As you know, what I said is "he has only tagged contributors with whom he has either been in conflict, or who have userboxes identifying them as ethnically Arab or Persian." That is a matter of objective fact, verifiable by any reviewing admin through a glance at your eight tags in the last 40 days. DocumentError (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

People were sanctioned for their comments in talk space in WP:AE for violation of WP:NPA for example So in my view the alert was in order but if admins think that its not so I will strike my edit..Also you are not a new editor.If there will be a policy not to alert a new editors I willy happily follow it.Maybe the policy should be changed here is a recent case of some new editors too unhappy with such tag[154]--Shrike (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again, the point is not alerting new editors, it is your highly selective "alerting" of new editors in a manner indicative of an intent to use the tag as a cudgel, which is not what it's intended for; the fact you've now indicated you'll continue race-tagging and only modify your behavior if there is a general policy change seems to underscore your intransigence on this point. DocumentError (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I never said that I will "continue race-tagging" and I never did you accusation is baseless and violation of WP:NPA.--Shrike (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I've not got a dog in this fight but that tag looks like it would be particularly intimidating to any new editors. It should not be seen as a "pre-emptive strike" to try to scare people away from editing or to push a particular POV. Looks like the tag is being misused here. Little Professor (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe these tags were re-written, after another editor (an arb IIRC) used them a lot. I'm sure they could benefit from further improvement, and maybe a better process for notification. For example:

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Does not seem optimum to me:

This message is informational and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions.

Seems unambiguously better and maybe even This message is informational. would suffice.

IF the wording was such that it was purely informational partisan editors would be sending it to their allies, to reduce the chance of their getting sanctioned.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC).

Yet another Evlekis sock

Hi

Can we revoke talk access on User:This Trapster abuse is identical to every other User:Evlekis sock. Amortias (T)(C) 19:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Talk page access revoked. Monty₈₄₅ 19:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I dont suppose we can revoke the whole wave of them and just leave Evlekis incase he fancies appealing his blocks. Amortias (T)(C) 19:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Hatetokyobiatch79

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,

Can we blockUser:Hatetokyobiatch79 for [155] obvious abuse only account unfortunatley im not sure what page shes referring to otherwise id have thrown this to SPI, also reported to @emergency. Amortias (T)(C) 17:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) Refer to User talk:Passioncity. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That'd be it, was looking for a mainspace page not a user one. Amortias (T)(C) 18:39, 31 August 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.

Can someone please get Elizium23 to stop threatening me?

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

---

Can someone please get Elizium23 to stop threatening me? They keep inventing and escalating problems when everyone else is being pretty helpful. I don't appreciate being threatened every time they don't get their way, like when they tried to delete the article. Masioka (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is thataway also read up on WP:Boomerang, some of your edits have been disruptive and there appears to be a lack of wiling to provide reliable sources to back up your claims. Amortias (T)(C)

I'm attempting to get the threats to end, other people are already intervening to resolve the disputed content (all of it has been kept despite that editor's attempts to remove it and delete the entire article). I have been providing reliable sources the whole time. The other editor maybe doesn't like what they say, however the sources are reliable. Masioka (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not an ANI matter and the "threats" are warnings about disruptive editing. Please continue your conversation with Elizium23 at Talk:World Congress of Families or as Amortias suggests, take it to Dispute Resolution if you prefer. I'd hate to see this escalate into something that might actually warrant the attention of this board. Thanks.  Philg88 ^♦talk 18:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's more than a content dispute. It's a behavioral issue and I was inches away from my own ANI filing anyway, so let's have it out now. Masioka is a WP:SPA come here to POV push on one article, World Congress of Families. She has edit-warred with me, deleted a maintenance tag out of process, made a personal attack against me, and now she has taken to using the Talk page as a soapbox for advocacy of anti-conservative polemics and bile. It's beginning to border on copyright violation as she copy-pastes from sources, too. So she has within the space of a couple of days clearly represented to me that she is not here constructively. Elizium23 (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to wonder now, given the prominence of WCF on HRC's home page, whether Masioka is somehow associated with, and/or on the payroll of, the Human Rights Campaign. Perhaps a checkuser could determine that, or Masikoa's good faith declaration yea or nay on this page. Elizium23 (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, do you have any other evidence of a connection between the OP and HRC besides both not liking the WCF, which is something quite a lot of people dislike? Nil Einne (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's just a random accusation. Elizium, I think you need to relax. People are allowed to disagree with you without being site banned. Maybe lay off the templates for a while, too. Masioka is pushing an obvious POV, but it's not the end of the world. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Posting four (4!) "you may be blocked" templates to a users Talk page within a 24-hour period is beyond excessive and can have no logical purpose except to threaten and intimidate. While these templates may not be seen as either of those things to an experienced editor, to a new or novice editor they can often be misconstrued as official warnings. Any issues with copyright, etc., should be handled in an appropriate forum and not by harassing the violator. The templates are not designed to be used as a cudgel. DocumentError (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think NinjaRobotPirate is correct, I overreacted in this case. It is worth mentioning that I have gone through some stress recently in my real life and I'm letting off some steam right now. It would've been a good time to disengage and take a WikiBreak instead of pounding on the Twinkle so much. So to Masioka and the community, I apologize for my role in this incident. But I stand by what I said earlier, including the suspicion of WP:COI; the pattern and the coincedences fit the profile, that is all I can say at the moment. I have worked frequently with disruptive COI editing and have developed a feel for it. Of course, this doesn't really add anything even if it were true because COI editors are not prohibited from any kind of editing anyway. Elizium23 (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable and well-meaning apology. I've placed Masioka's Talk page on my watchlist, as an assurance to him, and I think this matter can now be wrapped up. DocumentError (talk) 02:38, 31 August 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:SSSRVsegda trolling Zolitūde shopping centre roof collapse

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.

---

They seem to have created the account for sole purpose of adding misinformation to the articles related to said event. There were some conspiracy theories going around right after the event, but nothing like this and seems that user is deliberately throwing around over the top nationalist insults and readily inventing new arguments based on what they are told. I did point out Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources once it became clear reasoning won't work, but this only resulted in links vaguely related to event being added and accusations of hiding "the truth" ~~Xil (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for nationalist trolling and conspiracy peddling. Acroterion (talk) 02:25, 31 August 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.

Threat?

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

---

I checked the history of List of current Home and Away characters earlier and I believe 5summer78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a threat against me here: [156]. I understand that they are not happy with me for undoing their edits, but unfortunately they kept trying to add unsourced information, even after I asked them to provide a source. I hope this was the right place to post this, please point me in the right direction if not. - JuneGloom Talk 16:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure looks like one to me. I'd rev-del that edit summary and indef that editor KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 16:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

He's blocked. Up to you if you want to report it to the WMF.--v/r - TP 16:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I revdel'ed the edit. While I think it's more than likely a user overreacting, I've contacted the emergency team as a precaution. Current policy encourages you to treat all claims as being serious and that volunteers shouldn't be making the judgement call. Often times these comments are nothing more than empty threats made in anger, but it's something that shouldn't be left to chance. Mike V • Talk 17:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your help. - JuneGloom Talk 15:17, 29 August 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.

Persisting disruptive editing despite dispute resolution

I have been contributing to the "Barlas" clan page on Wikipedia for years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlas Recently, an editor named nawabmalhi added contentious assertions to the page - perhaps because they support the contentious assertions made by the founder of his religion, as evidenced by comments made on his page by other editors on other similar matters. In my case he added the vague word "Persianized" to the "Turco-Mongol" ethnic heritage of the Barlas, because the founder of his religion claimed to be Barlas and claimed to be "Persianized" which was a highly contentious claim then, and now. It simply is untrue. The editor used a marginal book on the Persians in support of this assertion. This editor has also changed the description of the Barlas empire from "Central Asia" to "Greater Persia." This is like calling present day France a "Roman Province." Additionally, he threatened me and while essentially vandalizing himself accused me of such. I took this to dispute resolution and here was the result after an over 7000 word discourse (included at the end of my request):

WP:TLDR

Proposed solution[edit] I think the best solution I can prose, with the evidence presented here, is that the existing wording of the article remains. Unless I see any decisive evidence (as opposed toWP:SYNTH and sources failing WP:RS, I will close this shortly. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC) @Mdann52 NawabMalhi says "Overall we are in agreement" at the end of his last comment and so I suggest this matter be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebenoyon(talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC) On August 26 nawabmalhi went back on what he had agreed to and again changed the wording of this article, and essentially tried to create the same misleading impression he had tried before, by adding Persia, Persianization and such again in the lines following the ones he had tried to change earlier.

OMG, summarize instead of posting pages worth of text. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The original discussion can be found here. There was no need to copy and paste the whole thing. The closing admin did not side with you, he told you to quit bickering. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson Thank you for the link to the Archives. I have never been through this process before and was unable to locate it earlier. This is why I posted the whole sequence of events. Thanks to your link I have now removed it from here to keep the posting concise.

The closing editor did not think there was credible or adequate evidence to change the wording of the article the way this editor wanted. This was my position as well.

Proposed solution[edit] I think the best solution I can prose, with the evidence presented here, is that the existing wording of the article remains. Unless I see any decisive evidence (as opposed toWP:SYNTH and sources failing WP:RS, I will close this shortly. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It was agreed that the wording would not be changed.

@Mdann52 NawabMalhi says "Overall we are in agreement" at the end of his last comment and so I suggest this matter be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebenoyon(talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Since I started this thread someone who specializes in Persian studies has also entered into the picture and is independently supporting the same position that it is not accurate to call this ethnic group "Persianized" and has reverted this wording to the last stable version which is fine with me.

Others have also said this as you can see on page history but this editor keeps persisting, as is self-evident on the page.

I just wanted to highlight how this editor was back at it after the matter being resolved and wanted to bring this to the attention of someone with more experience than me on Wikipedia. Someone who knew the ropes and could look at it dispassionately. This is because I recognized that last time around I got sucked into responding to this editor's repeated comments in bold directed at me etc. This did turn it into bickering, as the closing editor pointed out. That said, in the final analysis he did not see any merit in changing the wording to what this editor wanted and that is all I was getting at. And this editor agreed to the same.

This time around, as I have learned from the last process I will not take it as personally as I did when this editor tried to essentially change the ethnicity of our people and then kept persisting endlessly regardless of information provided. Thank you for responding to me. Jebenoyon (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson The edit discussed on the dispute resolution page and the edit I did recently are not the same at all and the recent edit was actually the compromise I was willing to do with Jebenoyon on the dispute resolution page when I said: Overall we are in agreement. The thing I agreed to was that I would not write that Barlas as a whole were Persianized, since the references that I provided on the dispute resolution were based off of the Timurids and Mughals (who are branches of the Barlas) and did not say the Barlas specifically.(even though all the references used in the Barlas article currently are related to the Timurids or Mughals). I this is what I told user Jebenoyon:

1.the source which you gave does mention the Timurids but the mention of a Barlas ancestor does not mean the ancestor gave the clan prominence but instead to soley trace the roots of the timurids.
2. Read the sources I gave you which shows that Even Timur was a ideal Perso-Islamic ruler
3. The timurids specifically along most of the Barlas were definetley persianized I gave you 8 valid sources
4. But I understand your point that maybe some segments may not have personally this is my first time hearing this
5. Till I find a source that specifically mentions Barlas in general I will not write persianized;however I do think it is important to mention that Timurids and Mughals were persianized and will reference this with the sources I gave you
6. And PLEASE understand that persianization in NOT ethnic but cultural Read persianization and Turko-Persian tradition

7. Again I did not threaten anyone to be honest you threatened report me I told you not to Edit War and asked Mdann52 if their was forum were a more specialized editor(in this area) could look at the issue

To be honest I think Jenebeyon is doing disruptive editing by deleting clear, concise, specific and very reliable Referenced material with many sources. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson As per your comments earlier Ian I will not repost all my comprehensive responses to the above as I am sure you can see them for yourself in the archives. I not only addressed each of nawabmalhi's sources but provided many more corroborating my position.

The closing editor started out with the statement below, as you can verify from the archives:

Hi. I am Mdann52, and am a volenteer here at DRN, however this does not give me any specific powers. Looking into the history of the article, the dispute appears to center around this type of edit. As the material is sourced, the burden of proof is on Nawabmalhi to show that reliable sources use the term as well. Are you able to show this? --Mdann52talk to me! 09:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Nawabmalhi then provided his sources. Below is the closing editor's response, as you can verify:

You need to provide a source that uses it in this context; A quick skim read of these shows that none of them appear to use the work in the context that is being discussed; Are you able to provide a source using it that can be used to support your dispute arguement (refering to this particularly, not just the general use of the word?). --Mdann52talk to me! 14:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

nawabmalhi then went on with most vigorously presenting all his information and the end result, as you can verify, was:

Proposed solution[edit] I think the best solution I can prose, with the evidence presented here, is that the existing wording of the article remains. Unless I see any decisive evidence (as opposed toWP:SYNTH and sources failing WP:RS, I will close this shortly. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52 NawabMalhi says "Overall we are in agreement" at the end of his last comment and so I suggest this matter be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebenoyon(talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the solution was clear - that nawabmalhi had not met the burden of proof and the wording would not be changed. Now he is trying to go about it another way by changing the next few sentences.

I will address the changes nawabmalhi tried to make this time around:

Right above where it says on the page that the Barlas were a Mongol tribe that shared heritage with Genghis Khan, from the house of Borjigin, which always was and is still on the page, nawabmalhi tried to add a sentence about the Barlas "originating in Mogulistan," This is historically wrong - Mogulistan was a breakway Khanate that originated in the 14th Century - well after the Barlas were mentioned in the "Secret History of the Mongols" so this is provably factually wrong. Further, using "Mogulistan," which existed briefly 650 years ago, is similar to what this editor tried earlier by using "Greater Persia" instead of Central Asia. Mogulistan does not exist, just like "Greater Persia does not exist, and the Barlas certainly did not originate there. Then, he adds "Persia" into the mix again by saying like many other tribes settled in Persia and Central Asia -its the same thing he tried before but just done on the next few sentences - the end result is the same - the creation of the false image of the Barlas being "Persianized" in which regard he failed to meet the burden of proof last time in dispute resolution.

The other change nawabmalhi made to the page this time was based on one source as to where the Barlas clan lives today, as follows:

The Barlas clan is now spread out in Central Asia, South Asia, Middle East,Turkey, and the Caucasus region. Like many other Turko-Mongol Tribes settled in Persia and Central Asia Big History: From the Big Bang to the Present

You can see he Googled looking for validation of his pre-existing notion, which is a pattern if you see his sources which are basically Google searches like "Barlas+Persianization" etc. And for the record, there are many Barlas in North America, Europe and other parts of the world.

Barons in Scotland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barons_in_Scotland The Scottish Baron is the lowest official titled nobility in the United Kingdom. Unlike England's .... Alisdair John Barlas. Auchinleck

Barlas murder information finally released. - Mason City ... https://www.facebook.com/masoncitypolicescanner/.../58889875782765... MASON CITY — Tom Barlas Jr. claimed to have killed Satan as he left the family's Mason City home after allegedly stabbing his father, Tom Sr., to death July 18.

So there are Barlas worldwide, good and bad.

The point is when is a matter considered resolved? How many times can a guy keep going back and fiddling with things causing everyone to spend a ton of time - something most people get fed up with and walk away from - yet if that is what we do then it encourages this type of stuff.

Below is what another editor said, if you look at the history of the Barlas page, when nawabmalhi started fiddling with the wording to make it more consonant with his views:

22:56, 9 June 2014‎ Hibernian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,337 bytes) (+89)‎ . . (All these edits are unnecessary, reverting the article back to how it was in April. This wording is perfectly fine

nawabmalhi still reverted it back to his version again. It was after that I got involved and after a time consuming and draining process it was agreed, as shown above, that the wording would not be changed. So now he goes and changes the next few lines with factually wrong information as I have shown above. The depth of his research is evident - superficial google searches to validate what he wants to show - this is not academic research in my opinion.

Now, since I started this thread here, someone who specializes in Iranian and Oriental studies, and has contributed to the Barlas page for long, like me, has reverted the wording back even from what I had reverted it to and to before the time nawab malhi started playing with it. Here is what he said:

(cur | prev) 09:37, 29 August 2014‎ Lysozym (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,223 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (restoring last stable version; the Barlas were not fully "Persianized", only partially in terms of culture; and they were "Turkicized" Mongols and they were fully aware of their Mongol origin and identity) (undo | thank)

In conclusion Ian, I submit that the page is fine as is, and if every time we reach a resolution this editor goes back and fiddles with the next sentence, when will it stop? If he wants to change what has worked fine on Wikipedia by consensus until he came along, and has conflicted with 3 or 4 editors on the page in as many months, does he not need to meet the burden of proof? And in this case I submit he clearly hasn't, just like what the closing editor said in the last case. It is unfortunate he got annoyed with the bickering but he clearly stated that no changes were to be made to the wording and now this editor, after a few weeks, starts fiddling with it again. I believe this editor is abusing the process, is the one being disruptive, and wasting everyone's time with superficial sources he does not fully understand as they are based on goggle searches and therefore he presents them out of context and is simply interested in getting his version onto the page somehow. This needs to be addressed. Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebenoyon (talk • contribs)

@Ian.thomsonThe edit discussed on the dispute resolution page and the edit I did recently are not the same at all and the recent edit was actually the compromise I was willing to do with Jebenoyon on the dispute resolution page when I said: Overall we are in agreement
Now I'll answer all of user Jebenoyon's twisted accusations:
Dispute resolution Noticeboard:
1.The reason why Mdann said at first the sources were out of context were because they used Timurids and Mughals(a subset of Barlas) but later I explained to him that Timurids are part of the Barlas and his position changed
2.Then Jeneboyon argued that not all Barlas as a whole were persianized because only the Timurids were not the only Barlas
3. Then Mdann said that might be WP:SYNTH and I said I will not write Barlas are Persianized as a whole but it is important the only two Notable Subsets of the Barlas were Persianized which is undeniable historical fact and afterwards Mdann made a new proposed resolution.
My Edit:
1. Here is part of my edit with which Jeneboyon has contention with (different from dispute resolution):

The Barlas clan is now spread out in Central Asia, South Asia, Middle East,Turkey, and the Caucasus region. Like many other Turko-Mongol Tribes settled in Persia and Central Asia, many subsets of the Barlas such as the Mughals and Timurids were persianized and made created elaborate Persianate Court Cultures.

2.Now I have not done WP:SYNTH since the sources I use directly use the Timurid and Mughals and meet required burden of proof.
3.My references are valid written by credible historians and I provide the page numbers and use Google books links a reliable way to search through millions of books so that people can look at the references.
4. I sticked to my promise to not write Barlas in general are persianized but instead I am very specific and willing to provide even more reliable Sources if needed.
5. Jebenoyon cannot just remove historical facts that are referenced clearly and then blame the other user for disruptive edits
Other editors don't agree:
1.One of the editors Jebenoyon mentions is Hibernian this is what he restored it too:

The Barlas (Chagatay/Persian: برلاس Barlās; also Berlas; Mongolian: Barlas) were a Turkified Mongol nomadic confederation in Central Asia, later Persianized and were settled and assimilated in Greater Persia.

3.If Jebenoyon wants to go back to the version Hibernian restored (I am fine with it) but the reality is he will not
4. Then he mentions Lysozym who actually agrees with me that the Barlas were persianized culturally(persianization is only cultural anyway, there is no ethnic persianization)

Jebenoyon should not and cannot delete clear, concise, specific and very reliable Referenced material with many sources written by credible historians and I provide the page numbers and use Google books links. Jebenoyon cannot just remove historical facts that are referenced clearly and then blame the other user for disruptive edits.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

References

@Ian.thomson As you can see Ian, this editor goes on and on, arguing this way and that way and endlessly - this is what I got drawn into last time and this is why the closing editor was annoyed because he came back to a ton of messages directed at him.

All these arguments nawabmalhi is making, he made before, repeatedly, and then some. The closing editor did not feel they were adequate to change the wording the way nawabmalhi wanted. The whole issue was that nawabmalhi wanted to say the Barlas were "Persianized" and that they lived in "Greater Persia." At the end of it all, as the Archives show, the closing editor said

Proposed solution[edit] I think the best solution I can prose, with the evidence presented here, is that the existing wording of the article remains. Unless I see any decisive evidence (as opposed toWP:SYNTH and sources failing WP:RS, I will close this shortly. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebenoyon (talk • contribs)

This should have been the end of the story. Now the proposed edits nawabmalhi wants to make amount to the same thing - so he is essentially re-arguing the entire case with you, against what was agreed to - by parsing words. I brought this here for a review of his conduct in persisting to try and create the same impression after a resolution he agreed to against doing so - if you think this is OK for him to do then I guess the next step would be arbitration because I don't think he will stop unless there is a binding resolution on this - I think there is more than enough here for you to decide what the closing editor's intent was, what was agreed to, and what the current proposed changes amount to. Let me add in conclusion that the way the page is now is fine with me, and it was reverted to this version by Lysozym and not me. If you notice, there were no issues on this page until this gentleman entered the picture. Jebenoyon (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jebenoyon Sorry, you don't want me to respond when you bring me administrator incident board? (I have to) You cannot delete clear, concise, specific and very reliable Referenced material with many sources written by credible historians and with the page numbers and use Google books links. And I looked at the edit history you removed the referenced material not user Lysozym

@Ian.thomson I told Jebenoyon clearly at DRN I would not write Barlas in general were persianized But it is important to mention the only two notable Branches of Barlas(Timurids and Mughals) were Persianized. The edit discussed on the dispute resolution page and the edit I did recently are very different and was the compromise Jebenoyon and I reached at DRN. And meets the Burden of Proof, specific and are verifiable which cannot be deleted. @Ian.thomson and please read my previous responses to his allegations he continues to repeat stuff, so my posts get drowned out by his. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

[Illegitimate blanking] and [Vandalism] by User:Director

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:Director has removed large portions of text in the article Istrian Exodus, albeit the edits removed were supported by 3 different verifiable secondary sources (check via the diff below to get convinced). Director briefly mentioned that the edits in question would be forever rolled back. So I did not even try to revert Director's edit because previous experience has shown this would end in an edit war or at best in a lengthy discussion going nowhere.

Now, the issue is that I genuinely believe the edits in question are correctly sourced and indeed the only user disagreeing is Director. His bold blanking without any attempt to discuss is a sign of lack of respect to those who try to improve the articles on this project after a long work of research.

This is the article after all Director's modifications: [157]]. It looks Director is actively modifying the article, so he might continue removing more text. I would have no problem in seeing my edits removed if other sources where presented, but Director just removed what he does not like.

However, this was the article before Director's modifications: [[158]]

I have limited faith this ANI will be of any help. Director has been in similar situations many times and always managed to get trough unarmed. But one thing is clear: if this time he will again let free to edit at his likes I will not male the mistake to lower myself to his methods. If this is the way Wikipedia works I can only acknowledge it. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Silvio1973 for having the courtesy to report himself. In spite of having been warned numerous, numerous times not to misrepresent sources, both these specific ones and in general, the user not only persists in doing so - but is entirely unapologetic about his conduct and even considers opposition to be "vandalism".

Throughout Archive 3 of Talk:Istrian exodus you will find instances of Silvio1973 getting caught in dishonest referencing. He was specifically caught misquoting these same sources for this same claim - about a dozen times, and was warned not to do that (e.g. here). Just go to Archive 3 and ctrl-F 'Djilas' or 'Dilas'.

Yet here he is, reporting me for reverting his addition of the same nonsense yet again. As I explain (yet again) in the thread I posted, the quoted source refers to the statement in question as "the claim, later seconded by Milovan Dilas, used by Stalin to justify the expulsion of the Yugoslav Communist Party from the Cominform". This is used by Silvio1973 as supposed support for stating the said "claim" as a fact.

Further, the user posts primary sources (without attribution in interpreted form) as references for statements of fact. I.e. a disgraced Yugoslav official (convicted by the government) claims in an interview that he was sent to expel Italians, and this statement is used as support for "Yugoslav officials worked to expel Italians"... Nonsense like that. In vain do I point to WP:PRIMARY.

There is another source by Italian author Gaetano Rando, but #1 it can't be verified atm and there is simply a strong statistical likelihood of it too having been misquoted by Silvio; #2 Provided its not misquoted, its an Italian author representing the Italian point of view in this national dispute: it ought to be carefully handled with regard to WP:WEIGHT and WP:THIRDPARTY. Silvio1973 is not the kind of user that one can work with in this manner.

Personally I am just perplexed at Silvio1973's entire attitude in issues like this. As I said - not only is he unapologetic, he's the one who gets offended when his dishonest sourcing is pointed out. This just keeps on happening.. The user will wait a few months and just post the same stuff again. -- Director (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The edits are perfectly sourced. You removed them without discussing, as you usually do with other users. Now you start a lengthy discussion (as you usually do when you do not like an edits) to make things hazy. If this ANI is closed without any decision I will request a 3O or open a RfC. I do not comment on your behavior. This time I will have an egregious conduct. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No, they are manifestly not. No, I did not. As you yourself say, I opened a thread on the talkpage laying out once more the dishonest referencing. You're the one who, without discussion, again introduced stuff you knew was opposed. You can request whatever you like, you're not about to cite primary sources as if they're secondary, or misquote sources by referring to a "claim" as a fact. Impo you ought to be swiftly boomeranged for disruptive conduct. This is clear WP:TE with the agenda to present the Yugoslav government as responsible for the events in question. -- Director (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Can someone just have a look at this report or close it? The ANI report is silly but we do need 3O, Silvio1973 requested one but it was rejected on grounds of this ANI report taking place. If no sanctions are to be imposed, pls close the report and join in. One sane voice is all this needs, imo. -- Director (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes we need more voices. Dear Director, next time do not rollback sourced material without joining the talk page and you will see that no-one will ever think to file an ANI. Simply you cannot remove sourced material without discussing. This is close to vandalism. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:25, 1 September 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.

Just a troll account

• Special:Contributions/64.233.172.51

Quite clearly a troll. Eik Corell (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours by User:Chillum, but [159] calls is a suspected proxy server. If it is we need a much longer block. Any proxy experts out there? Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the history of this IP and the fact that it is showing as a proxy I have upped the block to 6 months. Chillum 14:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Persistent editing against consensus

RealDealBillMcNeal (talk · contribs) has persistently edited against consensus despite countless warnings from various editors.

• Various sources have been removed as best explained in this archived discussion in July, with the actual dialogue stretching further back. Editor has chosen to continue with removal of a source against consensus.
• Editor had been advised on an article talk page and project page that edits should follow what was stated in the reliable sources, but chose to sneak in an edit against consensus.
• Editor has demonstrated an inability to participate in proper discussion, and accept wikipedia policies and alternative viewpoints, and had been blocked for 4 recent incidents of edit-warring.[160][161][162][163]

LRD NO (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Massive LOL. Removing a source from an oversourced section that I am working on improving with far more reliable sources. I note how you don't link to my dozen-plus recent edits on that same Cristiano Ronaldo article which have immensely improved both the content and the sources. But that wouldn't back up your unbelievably petty viewpoint. Funny, that.
• Changing the word "British" to "national". Wow, how controversial. A) there's no difference, B) the consensus was British rather than English, as I had changed it to before any debate about the word. Nobody mentioned national. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have to remind you to be civil again, and any form of mockery will not help your case.

• It has been explained to you many times that having other constructive edits does not mean that you can do this, this or this. You have removed a good reference from a statement that could be contended by the average non-football reader without good reason.
• The consensus on both pages is to use 'British', the exact term supported by 3 reliable sources. You should follow that instead of sneaking in the edit with other stuff. LRD NO (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• The only form of mockery is being performed by you for this whole charade. Did you write the Bleacher Report article I removed or something? My edits on the Ronaldo article (that you have again failed to link... hmm wonder why!!!!!!!!!!) clearly show a huge attempt at improving the entire thing. Crying to the authorities about the word national. How is that civil? Just stop wasting people's time over something so ludicrously petty. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is for you to go through the above points again for the answers. For the record, I am not the author of the Bleacher Report article if it helps in any way. I will leave it to the administrators to judge this incident based on the evidence presented. LRD NO (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You still didn't answer why you have failed to link to the dozen edits I made to the Cristiano Ronaldo article which render your salient complaint beyond irrelevant. BTW, I just looked through those discussions. Not once is there consensus either way with regards to self-publishing clickbait content farm Bleacher Report. So, I didn't even need to respond as any administrator worth their salt would have figured that out within three minutes. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The other edits are irrelevant to the issue I've raised, namely removal of a source that other editors had agreed sufficient for Wikipedia standards, and that's why they are not included. The many links are there for administrators to see, including remarks on Bleacher Report and other sources, and they will base their judgement on the evidence presented. Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The other edits that show I've been editing the article to try and improve it, including the removal and replacement of some rubbish sources, are irrelevant in the removal of a source that was part of an oversourced sentence in a section that is in the process of being edited? It's amazing that your thought process upon seeing the edit wasn't to casually remind of the "consensus" I'd clearly forgotten about (because A) consensus didn't happen, and B) not everybody remembers every single thing that happens on Wikipedia going back months upon months), but instead you chose to fly through my edit history to try and point out editing errors and then report them to the administrators! RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Four reliable source citations for a statement that could be deemed contentious by the average non-football fan/reader is not excessive and helps in verifying of opinion, nor are removal of them suitably supported by edit summary removing Bleacher report. The links in this report posted above supports agreement by other editors that sources including Bleacher Report should not be removed indiscriminately. Past incidents are relevant in the case of repeat offences and ignoring consensus, hence they are included in this ANI report objectively. Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Contentious, even though the first link is enough on its on to back up the statement. Offence, even though as I've told you, the section it is within is being improved. I await an apology. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It could be contended by the reader unfamiliar with the subject, hence the four references (instead of one) supporting the statement. What had been done was the indiscriminate removal of a link because it is Bleacher Report, which does not improve the section in any way, and has in fact lessened the verifiability on it. Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If a reader unfamiliar with the subject reads a sentence that says it is football's biggest rivalry, and the very first source after that sentence says it is football's biggest rivalry, how is the reader going to be confused? "Hmm, this link says it is football's biggest rivalry, but I just can't be sure that that is what the link actually says. I need verification of this claim from a notorious content farm". Sounds plausible. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

A potentially contentious statement needs more than one link for verifiability, and should not depend on a lone source to make a judgement. You have just admitted that the Bleacher Report link was removed because you think it is a "notorious content farm", against what was discussed. I would like administrator's opinion on this ANI report. Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If you two want to have a one on one conversation please do it on one of your talk pages. If you are seeking administrative attention then please just wait for an admin to respond. If an admin does not respond then it is likely not an administrative issue. Chillum 14:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I will wait for administrator response. Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Since I have warned Bill several times and already blocked him once I will not be personally responding this time. Chillum 14:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what you want an admin to do here. AFAICS, this is a content dispute that should be resolved by consensus on the talk page of the related article(s).  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Materialization (paranormal)

There is clear violation of WP:OR policy in the article. Some editors are not after proper sourcing/citing, but just act obstinate. I have filed the case in WP:NORN here. People (administrators and experienced editors) having a good command of WP:OR are needed to resolve this issue once & for all. Logos (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

While I don't think this is the right place to raise content disputes and as a filing at NORNB was made, the above seems improper duplication, perhaps this is the place to point out some problems with editor behavior. The OP is at 3R on the article (three identical removals of the same material in under 5 hours):

1. 05:38, 30 August 2014 'Scientific views: remove unrelated source; we don't need velasquez's unrelated synthy weasel analysis, he should refer to the scientists explicitly"
2. 06:17, 30 August 2014 "Undid revision 623427449 by MrBill3 (talk)per talk; don't add it that synthy source again"
3. 09:33, 30 August 2014 "Undid revision 623440450 by Dbrodbeck (talk)the source is irrelevant; be careful about your language'"

Is asserting the right to remove the material once again based solely on thier judgement:

• 10:07, 30 August 2014 "materialization"

"Your participation in Talk:Materialization_(paranormal) is pending. In case you can't present any solid argumentation, that irrelevant source will be removed again"

Is adding material to the disputed paragraph without discussion or support on talk:

• 01:15, 31 August 2014 "Scientific views: added what should have been added until now; will remove velasquez's book if objecting users do not raise any valid reasoning"

Is making assertions of misuse of warning templates, when 3RR notice was placed on their talk page when their edits had clearly reached 3R:

• 01:06, 31 August 2014 "Improper use of warning or blocking template" diff2
• 01:08, 31 August 2014 "Improper use of warning or blocking template"

It would seem from this and other actions ("bunch of ignorant users" etc) that the OP 1) Has a limited understanding of policy 2) Has a limited ability to collaborate 3) Has a limited ability to conduct themselves in a civil manner and 4) Does not show an interest improving their participation. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Funny you would talk about "ability to collaborate" when you and your friends would consistently remove a "dubious" tag from a source then complaining that the user marking it as such is "edit warring". You and your colleagues are clearly the ones making false assertions about physics and refusing any kind of proper discussion, simply avoiding the real topic. I am glad someone else pointed at your behavior. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm tired of correcting MrBill3's misinterpretations/misrepresentations: my 1st edit to remove that irrelevant source does not count as revert. Logos (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

On what basis would you assert that the first time you removed a source is not reverting another editor's contribution? - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"Is adding material to the disputed paragraph without discussion or support on talk": Had you checked the material ("All known interactions do conserve matter thus could not generate, from pure energy, a number of matter particles different from that of number of antimatter particles") I added, you would see that it was taken from the citation you had added into the article. I leave other false accusations by MrBill3 to other people to weigh out. Logos (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

After a couple of reverts by Logos at the page in question I reverted it back to the version before he/she began edit warring [164]. I asked Logos to 'move on' in my edit summary, I was told to 'watch my language' [165]. No offense was meant, indeed, I apologized for the use of 'move on' [166]. When I said, on the talk page, that I had agreed with 'pretty much everything that MrBill3 had said' I was told that this was 'not a (sic) participation' [167]. I eventually reverted the page back to where it was before Logos started edit warring [168]. and left Logos a 3RR warning [169], which, seemed appropriate as, well, as Logos was at 3RR. This was deleted, as, of course is Logos' right, with an edit summary stating that I should 'go read some policy' (though I guess not the 3RR one, unless I woefully misunderstand it). Incidentally, when MrBill3 left a 3RR warning he too was given the same response. [170]. I have attempted to remain civil, as I hope can be seen here: [171], but my WP:AGF is waning here. We have an editor who was recently blocked for edit warring [172] and another editor (Logos) who seem to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. If I have done something inappropriate I will, of course, own up to it, but, I don't think I, or MrBill3 for that matter, is causing the issue at this page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The only option is really to apply Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions on all disputing parties.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You want DS on everyone? That seems quite extreme. Dbrodbeck, if you think sanctions on a specific editor are required, I'd recommend WP:AE. It's a bit more systematic in it's approach. Meanwhile, if someone edit protected the article, that would encourage discussion. Second Quantization (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not suggest sanctions against anyone. I think you are mistaken. (Or, I have misread or misinterpreted what you wrote SQ). Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I said that but "disputing parties" I think consists of the loudest mouths in this whole debacle.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• A look at User:MrBill3's diffs above suggests an alert about the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions may be useful to Logos, and I have accordingly placed one. Also Logos's templated warnings about template abuse here and here (using templates, no less) are textbook examples of template abuse (from Logos). Bishonen | talk 19:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC).
• Bishonen, you know that your judgement is false; I would suggest you to internalize Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Role_of_administrators. Especially, the clauses 3 and 5; if not properly handled, twisted judgements can lead to desysopping. I will comment on your claim about template abuse, once you inform MrBill3 on 3RR and on my 1st edit's being an edit, not a revert. If you would interpret that my 1st edit is also a revert, then you will notice my edit summary there and my comments in talk page, which together warrants/justifies WP:3RRNO. I am not repeating all the relevant diffs here, for it's already been detailed at NORN. Feel free to join the discussion.. Logos (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic-ban question

Less than a year ago, several of us were topic-banned for allegedly saying the very same things for which the editor Int21h is now accused of saying but editors here are saying that somehow it's no longer a violation. The topic ban is [173], and you can research the lengthy discussion if you feel like it. The point is that either Int21h is as guilty as we were, or we are as innocent as he is. Wikipedia cannot have it both ways. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Other stuff exists would apply here, looking at what you were banned for it was more than just one comment made. I also want to add that every comment like articles are different and cant all be treated the same way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That looks like an arbcom restriction. Does the community have the authority to overturn this? Chillum 22:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you can't literally overturn it, but I want to see comments from others, of what has or has not changed since last October, so that I can appeal to the ArbCom if necessary. I claim the ban was a railroading on false pretenses. But even if they're right and I'm wrong about that, the accusations were the same then as now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If my discussion/proposal and/or comments result in an ArbCom discussion, I think review of related ArbCom discussions would be proper. Int21h (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I've asked a couple of the admins who sealed the deal a year ago to come here (if they want) and review all of this. One of the above editors claimed I was "canvassing", which is pretty funny considering I posted on the pages of two admins who supported my getting banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, as I said above in the other section, as Int21h was not alerted to the DS (and other conditions that do not require alert to be made are not met), sanctions are not possible via DS at this point in time.

Also, Knowledgekid87: I was the case clerk for the Manning case, and Rschen7754 implemented the TBAN, so I do not agree with your assessment that the message was canvassing. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case I owe @Baseball Bugs: an apology, sorry I didn't know. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Rogereeny. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering you kind of poisoned the above discussion by trying to repeatedly influence it while topic-banned on the subject, I don't think it's a great example to compare with your own topic ban. Maybe if you'd let it run its course without personally interfering?__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

So it would die a quick death and you wouldn't have to face up to the inherent hypocrisy and double-standard? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, your TB and Tarc's were uncalled for. You were banned because they had the power to do so, and frankly you were an irritant and Tarc pulled that (brilliant I must say) stunt. There was no way they were not going to react. Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak to the other users' situations, but in my case the ban was imposed under false pretenses - namely, bogus accusations of bigotry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal and editing of discussion/proposal/editing of comments from article talk page

I ask that User:Yworo's edits to Talk:Chelsea Manning#Painting a horse does not make a zebra ([174] and [175]) be reverted and the original content be restored. The demeanor of the edit summaries, and the conduct itself, makes it plain that any attempt to restore my comments to the comments that I made, unedited, will result in an edit war. Int21h (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In addition this user has been very WP:UNCIVIL with a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on said talk page. [176] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There is also a topic by the user below about this. Int21h (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Just attempting to comply with WP:BLP, which dictates that attacks against a living subject should be removed or struck. Insisting that a transgender person is a gender other than the one they identify with is hate speech, as is suggesting that gender-neutral pronouns be used. "Knowingly and deliberately misgendering a transgender person is considered extremely offensive by transgender individuals" (From Transphobia#Misgendering and exclusion, see article for further information on this topic). We'd not leave a reference to a black subject using the N-word on a talk page, and we should not be allowing deliberate misgendering of a subject or suggestions that they be grammatically treated as an object rather than a person. Yworo (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, don't encourage editors to compare BLP subjects to animals. Honestly, just stop it; it's not productive.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Im not encouraging anything, my complaint is that the user is being disruptive on the talkpage rather than being WP:CIVIL and talking things out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP subjects are humans and humans are animals, so any comparison is not only unintended but unnecessary. Int21h (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Int21h posted a comment including the remark "Chelsea is a male, not a female", which is gender-based hate speech directed toward a living person and prohibited by WP:BLP. See Transphobia#Misgendering and exclusion for perspective. Please advise. Yworo (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Accusing him of hate speech is a personal attack. 80.132.100.97 (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff for this "hate speech"? Chillum 21:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

[177]. It also compares the living subject to an animal and suggests she be referred to using gender-neutral pronouns, all of which are deliberately offensive toward a living transgender subject, as documented with citations in our article about Transphobia. Yworo (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here are the diffs of concern. In the last day or so, "transphobia" has been cited as an editing justification without basis. First, at this edit, the photo of Manning was removed with the comment "transphobia". Only the photo had been released by Manning's own attorney. Next Yworo reverts comments here from an experienced editor which are reasonable and neutrally phrased. Yworo also struck the statement quoted above. (The remarks have been restored and the strikeout removed.) IMO, and in the opinion of two other editors, this is not hate speech. This thread can be closed. – S. Rich (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I was topic banned for less than that. Int21h should likewise be topic-banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be acceptable. I second the proposal that Int21h should be topic-banned from all subjects dealing with transgender issues. Yworo (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You forgot the part about "frequently accused other participants in the dispute of malice", Bugs. 80.132.100.97 (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I for one am sick of editors crying "TRANSPHOBIA!" on every other edit an editor makes on the article, if you spot transphobic comments bring them up here and let a consensus be the judge. I oppose the topic ban. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Then you need to get my own topic ban rescinded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Bugs you can start your own thread if you want to talk about your topic ban. It is not appropriate here. Chillum 21:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a cop-out on your part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I just want to remind too that this article is under discretionary sanctions by ArbCom. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see hate speech. I see a point of view based on biology that differs from your point of view based on something other than biology. To be "hate speech" it would need to be based in hate. Consensus can decide what is in the article and people are allowed to disagree on the talk page. Also for the purposes of biological definitions humans are animals. Chillum 21:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree completely. I feel like Yworo is jumping the gun here to call it "hate speech" - if one's well-referenced viewpoint is hate speech, where do we draw the line on what hate speech is and isn't? It would be hate speech to go into the thread and rant about transgender people are some terrible combination of offensive words, not contributing a suggestion to make a possibly confusing topic more neutral. ProtossPylon 21:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. When I was topic-banned a year or so ago, the topic was controversial. It has long since been settled, so if anything Int21h's comments are way more egregious than whatever I supposedly said. Anything short of topic-banning Int21h is unacceptable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Transgender people commit suicide from the stress of being constantly misgendered. They are murdered by people who refer to them as "it". Misgendering is an attack and prohibited by WP:BLP. Yworo (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

See also "When a trans woman gets called a man, that is an act of violence." - Laverne Cox. Yworo (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Not saying it is or it isn't but just asking where under WP:BLP do you see this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Check the details on my and several others' topic bans a number of months ago, and you will see the exact same logic applied, i.e. alleged BLP violations. If Int21h is not guilty of BLP violations, then neither am I. If I am guilty of BLP violations, then so is Int21h. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK, WP:BLPDELETE. Yworo (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

We also have a project page on this topic, Wikipedia:Gender identity which explicitly connects misgendering with transphobia. See also WP:DIGNITY and WP:HARM. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a disputed essay that was put into place the last time the big round of disputes took place involving the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That's half right: it's an essay. In what way is it disputed? One thing that's not disputed, is that when it comes to living people, we err on the side of caution with respect to negative information and attacks. Also not disputed is that misgendering is indeed a personal attack against transgender people. Yworo (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the part quoted at the top is from MOS:IDENTITY, which is part of the Manual of Style and is thus policy. Referring to transgender individuals by chosen gender-identification is required, not optional. Yworo (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline, it cannot require anything. WP:NPOV is a policy. Chillum 22:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That does not apply to talk pages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct, but WP:BLP does apply to talk pages, and requires that we treat the subject respectfully both in articles and in discussions. And misgendering is extremely disrepectful to transgender people, as documented in Wikipedia's own articles on transgender subjects. Yworo (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with the above that this is not hate speech, you are blowing this up way more than it needs to be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Break

I think you are diminishing the terms "hate speech" and "transphobia" with your claims. It requires neither hate nor fear to believe that transgendered people have not actually changed gender. It is not a reasonable assumption of good faith to attribute hate or fear to an opinion that was based on the science of biology.

Wikipedia is meant to represent a neutral point of view, as such attributing fear or hate people's concerns damages this neutral point of view. Chillum 22:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

As Yworo suggests, the WikiProject page is the best place to discuss these issues in general. As for the particular thread, we have a case where righting great wrongs is spilling out in a completely disorganized and useless discussion. Just what is being asked of the administrators? Sanctions, Bans, Arbcom enforcement, or what?? – S. Rich (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What really needs to be done is to contact everyone who agreed with topic-bans on this subject a year ago, and see if they think Int21h's comments are likewise ban-worthy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur that this would be proper if indeed such is the topic of this section. Int21h (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have asked one of the admins involved in that discussion a year ago to comment on this. Either both of us should be topic-banned, or neither of us should be topic-banned, because we were/are accused of the same things - transphobia, comparing transsexuals with animals, hate speech, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(Edited) And just to clarify, did you compare transsexuals with animals, or did you assert that transsexuals were not human? Int21h (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think I had, but someone else decided that I had. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point, what I asked for has been achieved: restoration of the discussion and my comments. But was this topic merged with the other topic by User:Yworo, or was the other topic removed? Int21h (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic was merged by a third party, not me. And that's pretty much standard procedure on ANI. Yworo (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Since there is not much agreement that the comment was "hate speech" and the other party is satisfied perhaps this can be closed? Chillum 22:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No. If it was hate-speech a year ago, then it still is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Now that this has been brought to ArbCom's attention, I think you could close all or most of this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Bugs im sorry about your ban but in this case there appears to be a consensus that it was not hate speech. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What has changed between last September and this September... other than different random users (not real "consensus")? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Bugs this is the last warning I am going to give to you. The topic of this thread is not your topic ban, we are not run by precedent either. Create your own thread if you want to talk about your topic ban. You are being disruptive. Chillum 22:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It is you who are being disruptive. Fine, I'll open a separate section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Try bringing it up in your own section here after this discussion closes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

A cop-out, as with Chillum's earlier comment. It is unethical for you and him to be allowed to get away with this. I will continue to notify other users who were responsible for my topic ban a year ago, and then you'll find out what the real "consensus" is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If Baseball Bugs is still under a topic ban, they're pretty blatantly breaking it here, aren't they? How is this helping? __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Im not going to try to sway someone to their side here... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I was not banned from talking about topic-bans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like, what's it called, BS? You're not supposed to be talking about other people's topic bans, just your own, and only in the context of a formal appeal. Am I correct about that, per WP:TBAN? (I'm not asking Bugs, but other editors who are familiar with the subject. Bugs should probably cool it.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Given your personal attack immediately above, I will comment. I'm not aware of any rule that says I can't talk about the fact of my topic-ban. I am not allowed, nor am I even interested, in talking about the subject of the topic ban. I merely seek fairness and consistency. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking Bugs to continue discussing it, I clearly made no personal attacks, and Bugs is clearly participating in a thread that isn't about their topic ban, and is about the Chelsea Manning page and the subject of their topic ban. That's pretty cut-and-dried.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not your place to decide what I consider a personal attack. But given that you can't tell hate speech when you see it, it's for sure you can't tell a personal attack when you write it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• No sanctions can be applied via discretionary sanctions, as {{Ds/alert}} was not assigned, and no participation at WP:AE or WP:RFAR processes = Int21h cannot be sanctioned via DS without an alert. The community can still apply sanctions, however. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have re-submitted my original comment/proposal to make sure it is clear I am aware of the ArbCom final decision in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology case and that my original comment/proposal should be bound by it. None of my comments have been anything other than in support of, and supported by, WMF and Wikipedia policies. I want to make it clear: if you think I have violated any such policy, bring it on. Int21h (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Relevant ArbCom ruling

There is a relevant ArbCom ruling at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute, specificly:

Disruptive participation by Tarc states,

During the course of the dispute, Tarc (talk · contribs) intentionally engaged in inflammatory and offensive speech ("Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe", "Bradley Manning simply doesn't become a woman just because he says so") in a self-admitted attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

This is a nearly exact parallel to Int21h's heading and statements. His/her heading reads "Painting a horse does not make a zebra". ArbCom ruled 8 to 0 that such comments are disruptive, using the example, ""Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe". Both users used analogies based on animals. Both users denied the validity of Manning's gender identification. Yworo (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Based on this ArbCom precedent, I again request that Int21h be topic-banned or at least warned that such comments are indeed considered inflammatory and disruptive. Yworo (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Again not every comment is the same. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Where were you a year ago, when I needed you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Commenting like everyone else in the huge discussion, not every comment was given the same weight remember. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you take it up with arbcom if you think that an arbcom ruling is being violated. Chillum 23:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I've raised this with a couple of admins who supported the ban a year ago, which someone above claimed was "canvassing", so I dare not comment to anyone else who supported it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I would welcome an ArbCom discussion. I obviously disagree that my comments were in any way other than in support of, and supported by, WMF and Wikipedia policies. Int21h (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The last thing anyone wants is arbcom, it will take months for a result over one comment that almost everyone here has said is not hate speech. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between being intentionally disruptive, and trying to start a discussion from an opposing point of view. Even if Int21h's comments do get judged to be in bad taste (which I think they aren't), I feel that a topic ban for the first offense seems absolutely insane, given the context that it wasn't deliberately meant to offend someone. Also, the comment in reference to Tarc doesn't apply here. It was an Arbcom ruling for Tarc, specifically, and you failed to include the diff linked to "self-admitted attempt" where Tarc admitted that he was being rude for the sake of argument. I feel like you're grasping at straws now that you're at the point where you cherry-pick Arbcom rulings, and you seem to be taking way more offense to an attempted discussion than I would expect anyone - transgendered or not - to. ProtossPylon 23:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom did not just rule on disruption: it ruled 8 to 0 that comments questioning a subject's gender-identification are "inflammatory and offensive". Yworo (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you point out where in the ruling it says that? All I see is a ruling on Tarc's abusive comments, not on questioning gender-identity as a whole. As far as I can tell, those comments were listed as examples of the uncivil comments he was posting. ProtossPylon 23:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to link the section link the whole thing, Tarc said three comments that were deemed as offensive, we have one comment here that a majority of editors here has deemed as non hate speech. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• You know, not everyone buys into, or is even aware of, the distinction between gender and sex. I doubt Arbcom is going to serve up an edict on this one way or another. Don't go there.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• The whole thing has already gone to Arbcom. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom discussion

Yworo has brought this up at arbcom here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Int21h - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Accordingly, I have no objection to this thead being closed and tagged with this result. Yworo (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

They're going to do nothing with the editor in question, and they're going to block me for pointing out the hypocrisy. I'm sick of this place. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Tarc speaks

Well, thanks to Bugs for the info that I was being discussed, albeit tangentially.

There's a misconception here, though; I was not topic-banned for the "lipstick on a pig" comment, I was topic-banned for an 11th-hour revelation that it was all a put-on. Even that punishment was only because they couldn't think of anything better, only WTT I believe suggested a rather stern warning (which IMO would have been proper, given no prior history of this sort of thing), while a few others foolishly floated the idea of a blanket BLP ban. So, yea, if I'd stayed silent, that and the other comments I made would have earned no restriction or censure whatsoever. Let's make that perfectly clear here, your Arbitration Committee TOOK NO ACTION on the comments detailed here.

Again, I will say though that my ruse was a stupid and ill-formed idea, and that given a do-over I would repeat any of those antics. I did not take in to account how it would affect actual transgender people and supporters thereof. The person you're talking about here that made the zebra stripe comment, Int21h, is a bigot. I'll say that plainly and clearly right now. It is the height of prejudice and disrespect to not honor a transgender person's chosen gender, full stop, period, no wiggle room. However, if you're going to judge this person by the standards set by the Arbitration Committee in the Manning Dispute last year, then you're going to have to let the zebra comment slide, with maybe at most a warning. Change starts from the top and trickles down, folks; if you want this sort of thing to be truly actionable, there's not much you can do when the head rot trickles downward. Tarc (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The all-mighty Tarc has spoken, thanks for your input on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's all fine and good, but it's not the reasoning used in the arbitration case. And that's what counts here, right? Anyway, pleased to meet you, Tarc, and apologies for not thinking to inform you that I was using your name (hopefully not) in vain. Yworo (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I notified Tarc because he's the only other victim subject of that ArbCom ruling that I recall having interacted with before. The other user ID's did not look familiar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Well THATS throwing down the gauntlet.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Popcorn

Seriously, learn to shut it while you're ahead.--v/r - TP 05:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Given the nature of Int21h's "defense", I'm simply going to step back and make some popcorn. Oh, really! Yworo (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Again with your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, one of these days its going to come back to nip you when you get another editor riled up. WP:WINNING is never a good stance to take. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC) So in your opinion, stating that one is stepping back from a dispute is "Battleground" behavior? How ridiculous! Yworo (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC) What kind of reaction do you expect out of your comments? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Well, not the sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND response that your immediate reply was. Yworo (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Im sorry but I don't see editors going around saying they are going to make popcorn and give an "Oh, really!" comment after a long heated debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC) To clarify, "Pass the Popcorn" is a television trope. It is "always used for humor" and that was my only intent, humor, lightening things up. But perhaps you aren't familiar with the trope, so I'll forgive your provocative response. Yworo (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC) (ec) Since you have such a great sense of smell, what's Knowledgekid87's sharp, quick "battleground" reply smell like. Honestly? Yworo (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC) It has a wiff of gloating to me. Chillum 04:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC) (ec) Since you have such a great sense of smell, what's Knowledgekid87's sharp, quick "battleground" reply smell like. Honestly? Yworo (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC) You are very hostile. Chillum 04:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I don't think so. You are very blunt, I like that. To be blunt myself, Knowledgekid87's been following me around and making snide remarks all day because I opposed him in a discussion yesterday. Yworo (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Ever since the Manning dispute a year ago I have had the article on my watchlist, you can check my contributions the only things I have edited the same as you are Chelsea Manning and this huge debate that we were sucked into. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Oh, I'm not questioning how you got involved in the issue that brought this conversation to ANI. I'm questioning your motivation for continually being the first to respond directly to me, repeating over and over again a weak complaint that I was slightly rude after you were what I considered to be extremely rude: trying to tell me how I should engage in converstation in such a way as to please your tastes. Why do you keep doing this? Am I a bone? Yworo (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I responded to you here based on your popcorn comment which reminded me of the remarks you made the other day, if it were you about to be possibly banned would you like it if editors made jokes about wanting to make popcorn? Anyways I am tired it is almost 1:00AM here from now on I will not respond to your comments as I said I would do yesterday, it seems like an easy solution as I find myself editing different areas of wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC) It hasent just been this, I have also had issues with the editor here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chelsea_Manning&diff=623759020&oldid=623758768 posting rude things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC) You mean after twice you tried to dictate what I could or couldn't in a conversation? ] That if I support or oppose something I have to allow you to argue with me interminably, and then allow you to follow me around and harry me as you've been doing all day? Yworo (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC) "Im in no hurry you put down an oppose argument that can be fixed with editing so im wondering why you would oppose it is all. if you wish this will be my last comment addressed to you" I said that to you after the fact and before your rude comment, normally when someone places an opinion, others comment on it that's how consensus is built here on wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I did not say you had to do anything, I gave suggestions based on your comments but that is it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Here are the diffs: [178], [179]. And I am simply suggesting that you stop following me around and harassing me every comment I make. Yworo (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I saw the diffs above and gave my reply. The reason why I am here is it just so happens that the same article both me and you were editing had a major conflict that dragged us both in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC) But you are the first to reply with a snide remark every time I comment. I don't like it. Please stop. Yworo (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Settle down everyone. And if you are going to make popcorn, I suggest trying coconut oil. That's what movie theaters use.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Single-Purpose Disruptive Account

Krzyhorse22 first registered an account on WP on 30AUG2014. His first edit to WP was to file an ANI against StanTheMan87 in which he shotguns out a variety of accusations with no diffs, including 3RR, sockpuppetry, WP:CIVIL, etc. In the same ANI he claims he has consulted with "the head of CIA" on his allegations against StanTheMan87. To capstone this bizarre behavior, he has been relentlessly attempting to have .File:Mullah Omar.png, a long-established and clearly permissible image file, deleted, see: [[180]], . More importantly, StanTheMan87 is a relatively new editor and this assault may serve to intimidate and deter him from contributing in the future. DocumentError (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone Call Comey!!! Now!!! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeh, I'm sure he called the CIA director. Like I just called the president of Timbuktu. That looks like at best an argument from authority (with no source) and at worst a hint at a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't someone just warn him for his disruptive behaviour? Sure, he spoke to the director of the CIA, like I spoke to the head of the CID. :/ --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

DocumentError, my first edit was deleted. I had nominated an image that StanTheMan87 uploaded with false license. That's not a bizarre behavior and it's not disruptive. Don't misinterpret my words and actions, take a chill pill and stop harassing me. Tell StanTheMan87 to stop uploading images with false licenses.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Technically speaking, nobody is harassing you. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, stop making bogus claims about having called the CIA director. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Rsrikanth05, reporting someone just because he just joined Wikipedia is clearly harassment, and singling out a particular person.

Bugs, you have no idea who I am, meaning I could be a CIA agent and nobody will ever know. What's so big about emailing head of CIA? BTW, I just observed DocumentError (talk · contribs), he himself behaves like a single purpose account. [181] He likely created his own article (Andrew Hughes) or is someone who is closely connected to that dude. That, and him defending a new account (StanTheMan87), leads us to believe that he is disrupting Wikipedia. Check this. [182] [183]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

sounds legit DocumentError (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

, Now it looks like you are accusing others. Are people here so jobless? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations by Samuel Wesley

Samuel Wesley has been warned about copyright violations and he has not desisted from performing them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a note. The user, User:Samuel Wesley, is a new editor who had only been editing for a half hour when Tgeorgescu reported them here. Their first edit was at 17:54 and this report was made at 18:27 of the same day. In my opinion, Tgeorgescu needed to at least try to wait for a response from this new editor before running to an admin noticeboard to report the user. Additionally, Tgeorgescu for some reason thought that this new user could find their way through a busy page such as AN/I to an issue about themselves. They're a new editor. At least give them a link to the specific discussion thread! Dismas|^(talk) 09:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Reevaluation of topic ban

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

---

I have been topic banned on the subject of vaccines, because of disruptive editing on September 2, 2013. The main reason was a link addition, to the website GreenMedInfo.com in regards to vaccine research, with a scope on adverse effects. The related discussion can be accessed here. I understand now that this link, or similar links may caused disruption, because it presented a narrow few on vaccine research, and it wasn't in accordance with Wikipedia's reliable sources policy or MEDRS. I belief the ban should be lifted now because i have positively contributed in the past year to many topics, including medical research, and a broad range of scientific subjects, without related incidents, and understand today the implications of editing such topics. I've not received a ban since then. Thus, i'm asking the community to lift my ban, thank you. Ping, John, AndyTheGrump, Nyttend, John Carter--prokaryotes (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not at this moment opposed to the idea. I do want to wait and see what others more familiar with the situation have to say before I support it though. Chillum 22:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that Prokaryotes asked here for this ban to be lifted less than three months ago - with the following argument:

"In September 2013, admin John topic banned me (vaccination). However, i believe the judgement was in error since i did not engaged in an edit war, got no warning and didn't acted disruptive. After a group of users through the fringe notice board begun to look into my related edits they concluded i post fringe material or lack competence. The archived heated discussion can be found here, where i complained at ANI about subsequent actions from a few users. Most accusations from these users were unfounded and as pointed out i do not think the incident amounted to a topic ban, since it doesn't fit with WP:DE. There was a single source mentioned which is not compatible with WP:MEDRS. I did no attempt to re-add criticized content and i have no plans at this time to edit any of these topics in the future. In my edits i used a wide range of sources, most of them were from government entities (CDC or from the FDA and from science journals)- the exact opposite of what has been suggested. I did not looked into this until yesterday and after a brief discussion with John today i conclude that he rushed his decision. I ask here for someone not involved to re-evaluate my topic ban status, because i feel it was enforced wrongly. If this isn't the right place for such an inquiry point me to one, Thank You. prokaryotes (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC) [184] (see full thread here [185])

As the original ANI threads (note that the discussion in August/September 1913 continued below the first thread linked above) made clear this was never just about a single edit - it was about a pattern of editing and battleground behaviour, and note also that it was Prokaryotes who started the thread that led to the topic ban - by accusing multiple editors of "framing me as a potential fringe and making allegations". Given that Prokaryotes still fails above to acknowledge the wider concerns about his behaviour, I have serious doubts about the wisdom of lifting the topic ban. However, I was heavily involved in the original debate, and it might be best for less-involved contributors to make the final decision. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

However, i have finally acknowledged the wider concerns, as outlined in today's request. It would be constructive/helpful if you could be more precise - point out exactly what you describe as "Prokaryotes still fails" in your response, and acknowledge my edit behavior of the past twelve months, which is opposite to your conclusions. For instance i acknowledged above that the ban was based on one particular link which was initially discussed and lead to the ANI request in 2013, additionally i mentioned "similar links" (emphasis added). --prokaryotes (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It is also worth to point out that AndyTheGrump has an extensive block history for edit warring, personal attacks and legal threats, and since he does not provide accurate explanation of his reasoning, i wonder about his qualification to judge bans of other editors. --prokaryotes (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for AtG and didn't take part in the earlier discussions. But I find it unlikely an extensive topic ban was put in place "main reason was a link addition, to the website GreenMedInfo.com". Amongst other things, in such a case I would more likely expect simply a ban from you using the source. It seems far more likely the topic ban was due to problematic behaviour that indicated you shouldn't be editing the topic area, of which using the GMI website is only one component. A quick glance at the discussion seems to confirm this guess. Promising not to use similar links doesn't really convey an understanding of the reasons for the block, even more so since it doesn't seem to be just about using unsuitable sources. Even for unsuitable sources, it's not just about using them but what your use of them and your comments in defence of them suggest about you understanding of how to handle this topic area. (Your comment explaining why they shouldn't be used does address this to some extent but I'm not sure it indicates a real understanding.) No comment on lifting the ban however. Nil Einne (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledged that the sources discussed do not met WP standards and my behavior in relation to the incident amounted to disruptive editing - which was the the main reason given for my ban, i pointed out my edit behavior since, i acknowledged the implications. If there is something missing, as has been suggested by ATG, i want to know exactly what it was, instead of vague assumptions, so that im able to respond accordingly. --prokaryotes (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have slightly clarified my comment unfortunately I got an EC. I won't be commenting further since I've already spent more time on this than I care to so can't give a fair reply. I will just say your comment here combined with my reading of the original discussion does seem to re-enforce the view you don't really understand the reasons for your topicban. Mendaliv sums up my thoughts on another matter below. Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In August 2013, i was still fairly new to Wikipedia editing and made a lot of bad and poor decisions during content disputes. I understand today what was lacking and what amounted to disruptive editing and subsequently the topic ban and a two week blocking, because some edits and follow up discussions were not in accordance with community editing. I understand what amounted to my community ban at the time. I also understand that posting about user edits at the fringe noticeboard, does not necessarily imply that a user is supporting fringe theories, which i mistakenly thought at the time. --prokaryotes (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• No opinion on the topic ban, but I question the wisdom of pointing out another commenter's unrelated history in a discussion like this. If your intent, Prokaryotes, is to inspire the community to see you as willing to work collaboratively and follow our standards, you have a funny way of doing so. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I think my edit history speaks for itself. --prokaryotes (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but I think those opposing the lifting of your topic ban would agree with that sentiment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, vague assumptions. --prokaryotes (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Based on Prokaryotes' responses to this thread only, I oppose lifting the topic ban. I'm sorry, but it's clear you either do not understand the reason for your topic ban, or are deflecting any valid criticism of your behavior. The combative nature of your responses particularly makes it clear, though I should specify that my opposition is not because of Prokaryotes' responses to me. Instead it's due to the dredging up of Andy's block log, plus the responses to other commentators below. In particular, I note that Andy makes a valid point above, that the topic ban was due to a pattern of behavior outside of inserting a link to a fringe science website, and that Prokaryotes' request for lifting the topic ban did not address this. Instead of addressing the past pattern of behavior mentioned in that response, Prokaryotes claims that Andy's response does not specify where the problem lies. I'm sorry, but that's just not good enough. Even without the subsequent needless mention of the past block log, that's enough to make me uncomfortable about this user. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You confuse responding to user input with various other things, exactly what remains unclear though. Apparently this only happens with this particular ANI discussion.--prokaryotes (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the original discussion and this thread I am weakly against the ban being lifted. Nevertheless if there is a consensus for it, per WP:ROPE I have no objection to the ban being lifted. Prokaryotes, you need to internalise that the ban was not simply for inserting that link, it was for advocating for bad science on Wikipedia. If you go back to your bad old ways you will be subject to escalating blocks. The ban was to protect you (and the project) from this disruption. Without the ban unless you radically change your approach this won't end well. Are you sure you want to go there? --John (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm confident that i can now competent edit the subject of vaccines, and i think my edits on medical topics prove that. There haven't been a single related incident in regards to my edits of medical topics since the topic ban was declared. There have been minor issues, such as section sorting. See my contributions on HIV/AIDS research, ZMapp, Microcystin or 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak. This ban is now interfering with further edits on topics briefly mentioning vaccines. I have no intention to contribute to the articles which have been mentioned during the 2013 ANI incident. I do not plan to heavily edit vaccine topics at all. But i need to be able to make edits which mention vaccines on various related pages. Also if someone is still not convinced i ask to honor my entire contributions, not only focus on a handful of bad edits, or the related discussion. Since August 2013, i made like +4000 edits. --prokaryotes (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The grammatical errors in your above post do not lead me to believe you "can now competent edit the subject of vaccines". Yikes. Doc talk 06:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Competence doesn't require perfection. --prokaryotes (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It does, however, require competence so that outsiders can read an article and get some understanding from it. MarnetteD|Talk 07:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue you raise was never a center point of my edits, and grammatical errors during my edits can be considered minor.--prokaryotes (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Eukaryotes vs. procaryotes? Doc talk 07:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a symbiosis. --prokaryotes (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"Also if someone is still not convinced i ask to honor my entire contributions". You do understand the absurdity of this "test", yes? Doc talk 08:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You can browse user contributions, look up what you deem relevant, or pick from examples i have provided above. At least that's what i would do when judging user contributions, which is part of an appeal. --prokaryotes (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Decline First, the editor admits they "have finally acknowledged the wider concerns, as outlined in today's request". Excellent - prove that to us over the next 6 months of editing. Second, bringing up the absolutely unrelated block log of another editor is proof of a combative/battleground nature. Medical articles have enough of that bullshit already, and re-releasing someone who has such a mentality back into that area is a worse idea than strapping on metal underpants and standing on a hilltop during a lightning storm. the panda ₯’ 10:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I frequently edit medical articles without your alleged battleground behavior. The only time some raised concerns in those regards were in response to the ANI discussed here. --prokaryotes (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

... and your badgering of every respondent is yet further proof. Thanks for doing so. the panda ₯’ 10:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You cherry picked one comment, disregarded the explanation and then wrongly claimed that i would show battleground behavior on medical topics. Btw, in the ANI discussion from 2013, other users pointed out the behavior of AndyTheGrump, and since he mentioned a heated discussion above, it appeared relevant to mention his log as well. This might be off-topic but is by no means a battleground behavior. --prokaryotes (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep digging that hole the panda ₯’ 11:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIV, and if you make suggestions, provide difs where i battle at medical topics. Further stay civil and respect me responding and taking part here, which is not battling or badgering. --prokaryotes (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have to concur with my colleague DangerousPanda. You're just digging yourself deeper. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something ATG never mentioned any heated discussion above. Are you getting confused by their first comment? The mention of a heated discussion there is not from ATG. ATG simply quoted your older comments at ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've collapsed this comment to avoid detracting from the request. Youl should still feel free to reply if necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(EC) Generally speaking, when discussing the possibility of imposing sanctions or otherwise taking action to protect wikipedia (such as protecting pages) AN//I, it's acceptable to mention relevant behavioural issues of all participants of whatever dispute. This may also apply when discussing lifting sanctions, although mostly only in cases when the sanctions are related to multiple parties (e.g. interaction bans). However, when you asking for lifting of a topic ban, it's almost definitely a bad idea for you to be the one bring up unconnected behavioural issues of other editors, regardless of their involvement in your original topic ban (which ATG had already acknowledged anyway) or their opposition to its lifting. In fact, in a case like this, the behavioural issues you mentioned are basically unimportant. (The only likely relevant behavioural issues would be if an editor was known for persistent disagreements and problems interacting with you.) It's also acceptable to offer some level of defence of your actions or behaviour. But you have to be careful this doesn't go too far such that it seems that you're badgering respondents. As for your contributions, I had a brief look earlier. I didn't see any obvious problems but it wasn't enough for me to comment further. A point which you seem to be missing is that however good your contributions may have been, you're going to have difficulty getting others to evaluate them if they're seeing stuff from you here which leads them to believe it's not a good idea to lift your topic ban, or at least that it's not worth their time examining whether there is merit. (Remember that even if you have excellent contributions to other related areas, you can still contribute poorly to a certain area, perhaps because of strong personal feelings or whatever. So you can always override the trust earned by excellent contributions.) Personally, I feel your original request here wasn't brillant, but I wouldn't say it's enough to dismiss your request (unlike your older request). Unfortunately, your responses did begin to push it in that direction. If you want to continue with this request, I suggest you consider your responses carefully since clearly I'm not the only one who feels they aren't helping your case. Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• I reviewed the June 2014 ANI discussion and the above and can see no indication that any benefit would result from a change in the topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Now review my actual article contributions. --prokaryotes (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Conclusion - I just decided to retire from Wikipedia. Im tired of this BS here, either judge my contributions to actual articles or STFU:) ROFL --prokaryotes (talk) 13:11, 2 September 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.

Issues regarding User:PapaJeckloy's behavior

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.

---

Based on the latest SPI report against this user, I am formally requesting to ban User:PapaJeckloy on editing here in Wikipedia on the following grounds:

• Disruption at WP:DYK

He started disrupting the nominations in DYK after one of his created articles were featured in the DYK section (more of this on the next section). He began creating "half baked" articles then nominate them immediately to DYK. (see Template:Did you know nominations/Justin Melton and Template:Did you know nominations/Zaccheus Mason) After his first two nominations were rejected, he created more DYK nominations. One of them was approved, but later found out that the approver is PapaJeckloy's sockpuppet, User:Gongon3336 (see the discussion of Template:Did you know nominations/Lyca Gairanod for details) The said user only had a few edits before he approved the Lyca Gairanod DYK nomination. He also used two sockpuppet accounts to approve his DYK nominations: User:Gelkia31 and User:EtitsNgKabayo. Gelkia31 approved the DYK nomination of Isko Salvador (see DYK discussion), while EtitsNgKabayo (a profane username which translates to "horse's penis") approved Juan Karlos Labajo (DYK discussion).

He also approved DYK nominations from other editors and were not thoroughly checked for any grammatical errors or prose.

• Agressive behavior towards other editors

As mentioned above, one of his created articles were featured in DYK (2014 PBA Commissioner's Cup Finals). Although the majority of the edits came from me, I added his name because he created the article. I also keep track of my successful DYK nominations at my user page. When he saw my user page, he posted this to my talk page, saying that I should not "steal" his opportunity. After this incident, he didn't stop in criticizing all of my edits. He accused me of being "biased" because I'm a fan of a PBA team that is a rival of his favorite team (see discussion here).

Another incident involving his aggressive behavior is at the DYK nomination of Juan Karlos Labajo. The creator of the article User:001Jrm and Jeckloy had a very heated discussion on the latter's talk page. (see here). -WayKurat (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I would support a ban, at least in the DYK and GAN areas where they have been active and disruptive (see DYK discussion, GAN discussion). They denied socking on their talk page and elsewhere, which has now been confirmed, and have shown no remorse so I don't see their behaviour improving. While being investigated for socking, they stepped up the ante, assembling DYK hook sets and improperly promoting a DYK hook that had not even been reviewed yet. HelenOnline 15:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban from all content evaluation processes. PapaJeckloy has already used socks to disrupt DYK and cause an article containing a blatant copyvio image to be listed on the main page (see Template:Did you know nominations/Lyca Gairanod, which his sockpuppet Gongon3336 passed). I intend this ban to hit all main page processes (DYK, OTD, ITN, TFA, TFP) as well as other content quality evaluation processes (GA, FA, FP, FL, AFC) and should probably also extend to article assessment as well (see his conduct at Talk:Isko Salvador). The use of socks to get something on the main page is so outrageous that I'm surprised he's not subject to an indefinite block for his socking. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Now that Jeckloy has been indeffed, I suggest that this just be closed as moot. I don't think there's a need for a full-on formal ban at this time. But should Jeckloy return via the standard offer, we should ensure that his participation in these important areas is curtailed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• After looking into this, I have extended the block on the user to indef due to the disruption and socking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef block This sort of deceptiveness destroys the trust needed in a collaborative environment. I agree there is no need to seek a community ban, a defacto one will do just fine. Chillum 16:26, 2 September 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:Enigma8

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

---

Resolved

Warnings at User talk:Enigma8 have been ignored, and the latest edit by Enigma8 is to remove an {{Afd}} template from Gabriel de Saint Nicholas (please see discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel de Saint Nicholas), at the same time again deleting a number of citation-needed tags, &c. Enigma8 appears to be one identity of the IP 46.107.174.107. Can someone please revert the last edit to Gabriel de Saint Nicholas to reinstate the {{Afd}} template and also consider blocking Enigma8? Thank you! Moonraker (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the tag, issued a 3rr warning, and asked the primary account to identify any alternates. DrKiernan (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I've just found Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYCsociety/Archive. Looks like another sock farm from the same editor. DrKiernan (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The only response was to continue edit-warring, so I've blocked and tagged the accounts. Moonraker, in future please remember to notify any user that you mention at ANI. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat- Alextaylor 8 unblock request

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

---

Resolved

 – Talk page access removed

Alextaylor 8 has made an unblock request that says "I did nothing but tell the people what they want to know and confirm the rumours that Pete price is a reptilian humanoid as David Icke suggested. I was snitched up by Mattythewhite as he has nothing better to do with his life. Please unblock my IP address so I do not feel excluded or I will sue both Wikipedia and Mattythewhite as they both are inconsiderate arseholes. Good day". He has made a legal threat. Is there anything that can be done regarding this situation? You may look at the talk page User talk:Alextaylor 8. 1999sportsfan (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, however, this is is not a legal threat as being an inconsiderate arsehole is not an actionable claim, except in Louisiana and Quebec. DocumentError (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And I have declined that request. I suggest that another such request and access to his talk page be revoked. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

However frivolous the claim, "I will sue" is, in fact, a legal threat (and a rather explicit one). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

First off, "I will sue" is a legal threat, even if the basis of the legal threat is not sound. We are not lawyers(perhaps some of us are). Secondly I have removed the talk page access of this user on the basis that they were using it for personal attacks. It really does not matter if it is a legal threat, the unblock request deserves the removal of talk page access either way. Chillum 16:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And I just blanked it due to the BLP problems there. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 15:51, 2 September 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.

OpenOffice

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

---

There's a (presumably good faith) dispute about the content of the disambiguation page OpenOffice. The dispute deals with the adding/removing of non-ambiguous titles to the page proper. One editors add them. Another editor moves them to the See also section. In particular, the inclusion/exclusion of Libre Office is at the nub of the dispute.

This incident relates to one editor, Walter Görlitz, who, in my view, is demonstrating disruptive editing and battleground mentality towards me specifically.

Background

Here's the edit history of adding/removing the non-ambiguous terms:

• Added by Thumperward: 16 August 2013
• Removed by 50.138.228.216: 16 August 2013
• Revert-warring between David Gerard and 50.138.228.216: 16-20 August 2013
• Revert-warring between 202.75.18.110 and 50.138.228.216: 20-31 August 2013‎
• Removed by JHunterJ (as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation): 8 October 2013
• Added by David Gerard: 28 October 2013
• Removed again by JHunterJ: 28 October 2013
• Partial removed by Nigelj: 1 February 2014
• Partial added by Walter Görlitz: 1 February 2014
• Added by Enquire: 16 February 2014

The page was marked for clean up by Widefox on 6 March 2014 due to the inclusion of non-ambiguous terms. I answered the call for clean up on 6 August 2014 and was reverted by ClareTheSharer (citing "POV changes" and "No Talk discussion and changes ignore consensus"). No particular problems or issues so far (although ClareTheSharer's comments were undeserved) because I presume the issue lies simply in a misunderstanding of what to list on disambiguation pages.

Walter Görlitz

The incident I am raising is with Walter Görlitz demonstrating disruptive and battleground-style behavior in the discussion that followed. His behavior seemingly carries a grudge over from other discussions (or he is unable to distinguish this discussion from another). In particular:

• (on-going) disagreement at Talk:OpenOffice.org
• a RM I made at OpenOffice last January

Particular comments included:

"Introducing delusional information that you and Tóraí lean toward is not an option though. As for the attempted insults that we show ownership, it doesn't fly. We simply support the references. Suck on that." (29 August 2014)

"Pretty much everything you've written is skewed to some degree and everyone who has commented here and at the OpenOffice.org has stated that." - 30 August 2014

Then there's this gem of disruptive editing editing, 31 August 2014, where he avoids repeated requests to explain his objections.

Another particularly noxious example is making out that I'm working against consensus (what consensus?) in moving the non-ambiguous terms to the See also section. And (falsely) pointing to the unrelated RM discussion as evidence for consensus on this matter (7 August 2014). Or reverting changes that move the non-ambigious terms citing an unrelated RfC on OpenOffice.org.

These issues may appear small but when grudges from unrelated issues are carried across articles or discussions it feels vindictive and is wearing.

Action requested: A warning or (short) block for battlefield mentality and disruptive editing.

--Tóraí (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Already blocked for edit warring by Mike_V. Amortias (T)(C) 21:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

At the same time, he needs to made understand his behavior towards me isn't on. He'll be back in 48hrs and his attitude in this dispute won't have changed unless he is told it's not acceptable. --Tóraí (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This is being dealt with by the administrators involved on his talk page. Best to let them thrash it out and I'll notify the admins involved so there aware of this issue as well. Amortias (T)(C) 21:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. If you ask one of them to look at this tread and decide what to, I'd appreciate that. May I suggest Bbb23 since he/she is currently in active discussion with Walter. I won't for want of keeping interaction with Bbb23 (or who ever) unbiased. --Tóraí (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Requests sent to the administrators involved in his block/unblock requests. Amortias (T)(C) 21:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Walter's block log I think escalating blocks should be used instead of continuing with short blocks. PhilKnight (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree absolutely and have said as much in my decline and other comments on Walter's talk page. To say he's not taking it well is an understatement.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I've had a few interactions with Walter Görlitz in the past year. None of them have been pleasant, regardless of how he was approached. Since that time, I've seen a few articles on my watchlist that he also edits and have noted he is often quite abrasive (typically unnecessarily so). He does seem to approach editing with the battleground mentality mentioned above, and is prone to edit warring without apology. I have no vendetta or hard feelings against Walter, but he does seem to stomp on editors a lot. Since my interactions with him have ended up mostly negative, I just try to avoid having any contact unless absolutely necessary. But how long is one expected to do that without commenting on his persistent and unapologetic disruptive behavior? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Based on his recent user talk page comments, I'm thinking of increasing his block to a month. Would anybody object? PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. User appears to have been reverting what he thought was vandalism and was subsequently blocked. Whether it was vandalism or not is a dispute for another page. However, as I myself have been blocked multiple times for reverting both vandals and sock puppets, I can sympathize with his current block. The OpenOffice issue appears to be more of a content dispute. Combining this current current content dispute with his unrelated block appears to be an attempt to stack the deck against the user. I would need to see more evidence that a block is necessary. On the other hand, the user should be on 1RR at the minimum. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support but I'd like to hear from Mike V, the blocking administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
• I have no objections to an extended block. I feel this is a reoccurring problem that Walter does not see or does not wish to address. After reviewing the progression of the talk page, I agree with PhilKnight and BBb23 that this issue won't resolve when the block expires. Mike V • Talk 01:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I've extended the block to a month. In regard to the comment by Viriditas about 1RR - if Walter Görlitz could be persuaded to follow 1RR I think that would go a long way to resolving this, however for the moment, I have just extended the block. PhilKnight (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, when the block begins to come to a close I would like to propose a 1RR agreement with him. Mike V • Talk 02:22, 1 September 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.

guerillero, chillum, dreadstar lying to own a page

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

---

Guerillero has now admitted, checkuser shows that I'm a thousand miles from the people from texas they were claiming I am, but they keep blocking and harassing any editor not a member of their pro-woo groups at Vani Hari. It's so obvious they are abusing when they accuse people of being "sockpuppets", vani hari followers think everyone is a "monsanto shill" or something else. You need better admins who are capable of honesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.100.12 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Range block, anyone? Ansh666 19:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

maybe you admins should be made to follow the rules instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.100.12 (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What rules, sire? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:27, 1 September 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.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

This editor and I have had several conversation both on Talk:Kevin Sorbo and on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz‎, which are documented below. His style seems to be largely bluster and insult wherever he goes, treating just about everyone without any civility whatsoever. I have a pretty thick skin, and was going to let this go, until I decided I'd have a look at his editing work where it seems like there might be some gaming WP:Game going on. While he does make some constructive edits, most of his are destructive and insulting. He issues personal attacks via edit summaries [186] ("absolute blithering idiocy", "claptrap", "outright phony claim"). Nor does he seem to post warnings on users pages (helpful when we're fighting vandalism). While he might be "right" about the edits he makes, it does not give him license to insult all other editors while he's doing it. His 800-section Talk Page (preserved in its entirety here in case it gets cleaned up) [187] is littered with arguments between him and others based on personal attacks.

When he's called on it (as noted in talk page history and through my own experience below), his typical behavior is to immediately turn the tables and call the criticism "offensive". Speed and efficiency are great, but effectiveness is also important and this style of editing and reviewing does not foster individual's learning how to better edit the encyclopedia. It only creates turmoil, resentment and resistance.

Normally, I'd just walk away, and I'm fully aware that this submission will result in an ad hominem attack by this user. However, this individual is doing more damage to the project than he is good. I request a warning be issued and if behavior does not improve, further action be taken.

Background and Conversations

I received a bot messages asking for feedback at the Talk:Kevin Sorbo Page. When I arrived at that talk page, here's the "discussion" that had taken place thus far: [188]

Then, in an effort to provide focus, I posted a message asking if the purpose of the RFC was to call people names or discuss the content suggested for the article. The remainder of the "conversation", including my first entry is here: [189]

Now, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz might have been correct about the sock issue. And I wanted to afford him every benefit of the doubt, but also wanted to handle it per WP process and policy, I left the following message on this individual's talk page: [190]

And got this reply: [191]

And I responded so (even though I might should not have): [192]

Which he reverted.

To which I wrote: [193]

Which he reverted again, claiming it was "unwanted and offensive".

Thank you for your attention and consideration. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 14:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Just my 2 cents, but IMO this is just "par for the course" for interaction with HW even when someone interacts with him with a measure of logic and civility. Granted, he is an active and staunch editor of BLP articles, but I would also say that he is greatly prone to hyperbole at the very least with Edit Summaries such as "Gov. Christie, your opinions are not an appropriate substitute for independent, reliable sources!"[194], "still unsupported/unsourced, obvious sockpuppetry"[195], "clean up, yet another porn-related list deserving evisceration"[196], and my personal favorite "another gross BLP violation"[197] (you have to look at the dif to get why I find it so humorous) when relatively minor edits or changes are made including the removal of sourced content that he seemingly does not like. This hyperbole is also applied to Editors that seemingly do not unabashedly agree with his edits and methods. He will of course accuse me of the same in his defense, but that does not explain or justify his actions. Furthermore, lately he does seem to want to control conversations (or the impression of them at least) on his Tolstoy-ishly long (and desperately in need of archiving) Talk page. For example we recently had this exchange. HW kept deleting my comments [198][199][200][201] when I challenged him on his racism accusation. I'm not entirely sure if his actions amount to a Talk page policy violation (and don't care), but in my experience its par for this User. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"'par for the course' for interaction with HW even when someone interacts with him with a measure of civility"? I haven't worked with HW enough to have an opinion about her/his civility, but I have with you, and your edit summary [202] in reply to one of his recent edits is incivil: "Undid revision 623630303 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Useless, lazy Editor refuses to AGF and check references on their own, prefers own personal knowledge of porn." Lightbreather (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The diff of Scalhotrid complaining that HW doesn't assume good faith while showing his own bad faith by not declaring, as Lightbreather has noted, that he was not posting with clean hands is quite breathtaking. Scalhotrod appear sto have conveniently missed the beam in their own eye whilst complaining about a speck elsewhere and their history with HW is such that I am not the slightest bit surprised that he doesn't want to respond to their comments. And yes, I also have a history with this user and have no problem declaring that so other users can weigh my comment correctly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Am I guilty of ever being a jerk or hypocrite, Yes. I won't deny, argue the point, or even try to justify it. I'm human, I'm flawed, emotional, illogical at times, and have bad days just like anyone else. But will that stop me (or anyone else) from having an opinion and offering it up for others to consider, heck no. Regardless of their history, I would not expect any less from any other User on this site, present company included. But Spartaz, your expectation of only Users who, as you invoke, have "clean hands", offering up opinions or observations is not only impractical, its IMO pointlessly counterproductive. Some of the best Editors and Admins that we have on this site have messed up plenty and are better for it. Drmies, an Admin I respect tremendously, just had a recent blowup. I doubt that incident invalidates his knowledge, experience, and/or opinions. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by User:Chealer for month of July, month of August, month of September.

Perisistent vandalism by User:Chealer has returned by that User following full protection expiration at the Wikipedia page. Requesting intervention against persistent vandalism for the Wikipedia page. Three other editors have tried to repair the page against persistent vandalism. The full list of diffs and urls are far too numerous to link all together. This is the list of further deletions of cited material by that editor followed by the re-inserting of citation template requests to provide the deleted material:

Edit history of tag bombing and deletions for July 2014
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
− (cur | prev) 12:58, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,804 bytes) (+30)‎ . . (lead: challenge "fifty policies for quality assurance") − − (cur | prev) 12:48, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (216,695 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (→‎Rules and laws governing content and editor behavior: Dispute resolution is neither a rule nor a law) − − (cur | prev) 12:29, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,439 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (→‎Automated editing: request reference and partially fix) − − (cur | prev) 12:27, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,431 bytes) (-54)‎ . . (lead: collaboration and expertise are not exclusive. shorten) − − (cur | prev) 12:21, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,485 bytes) (-258)‎ . . (Undid revision 619228137 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) duplication) − − (cur | prev) 01:56, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,266 bytes) (-21)‎ . . (→‎Review of changes) − − (cur | prev) 00:16, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,287 bytes) (-561)‎ . . (lead: restore definitions of "Wikipedia". the lead's content doesn't have to be repeated in the body.) − − (cur | prev) 00:05, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,848 bytes) (-31)‎ . . (Undid revision 619068822 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) the opposite of expert-driven is certainly not "consensus-driven") − − (cur | prev) 23:03, 30 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,879 bytes) (-93)‎ . . (→‎Automated editing: structure) − − (cur | prev) 19:58, 30 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (217,045 bytes) (+28)‎ . . (→‎Automation: restore request for reference for bots blocking accounts or IPs) − − (cur | prev) 19:52, 30 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (217,017 bytes) (-328)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism: Seigenthaler: remove duplicate mention of year. remove duplicate mention of BLP.) − − (cur | prev) 02:26, 30 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,126 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (lead: flag unreadable sentence) − − (cur | prev) 04:32, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,617 bytes) (-30)‎ . . (→‎Editing: split subsection "Review of changes") − − (cur | prev) 04:23, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,647 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (→‎Arbitration Committee: these statistics are old, and rates surely didn't stay precisely that way for long) − − (cur | prev) 02:42, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,644 bytes) (-442)‎ . . (→‎Community: remove poorly sourced part on inexperienced editors) − − (cur | prev) 02:33, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,086 bytes) (+40)‎ . . (move (and adapt) Talk page coverage from Editing to Community) − − (cur | prev) 02:05, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,046 bytes) (-225)‎ . . (→‎Analysis of content: remove paragraph on WikiWarMonitor (off-topic, content-less, poor writing. possibly fits in See also)) − − (cur | prev) 01:36, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,256 bytes) (-14)‎ . . (lead: fix sentence comparing article count with "Britannica") − − (cur | prev) 01:27, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,270 bytes) (+193)‎ . . (lead: move size comparison back where "Britannica" has been introduced) − − (cur | prev) 01:23, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,077 bytes) (-1,364)‎ . . (remove lead's last sentence (unreadable)) − − (cur | prev) 01:08, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,441 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: request clarification of "the majority “weight” of viewpoints") − − (cur | prev) 04:31, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,030 bytes) (-167)‎ . . (→‎Nature) − − (cur | prev) 03:58, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,197 bytes) (-712)‎ . . (merge paragraph on Signpost from "Open collaboration" section to "Internal news publications") − − (cur | prev) 03:36, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,909 bytes) (-39)‎ . . (merge "Organization of article pages" section into "Analysis of content" and "Internal quality control and assessment of importance") − − (cur | prev) 03:31, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (215,948 bytes) (-121)‎ . . (→‎Organization of article pages: split in 2 paragraphs) − − (cur | prev) 02:59, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,069 bytes) (+165)‎ . . (move paragraph on wikiprojects from "Organization of article pages" to Operation) − − (cur | prev) 02:42, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,904 bytes) (-56)‎ . . (specify that Wikipedia is a wiki in lead) − − (cur | prev) 02:32, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (215,960 bytes) (-25)‎ . . (lead: remove reference to Alexa (broken)) − − (cur | prev) 02:28, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,985 bytes) (-945)‎ . . (remove poorly sourced parts on Google fueling growth. remove redundant and poorly sourced sentence on popularity) − − (cur | prev) 02:16, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,930 bytes) (-254)‎ . . (remove broken AlexaTop500. move anyone reference where it seems to belong) − − (cur | prev) 02:04, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (217,184 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (move sentence about Time magazine from lead to "Cultural significance". not sure this deserves any treatment here) − − (cur | prev) 02:02, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (217,183 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (update URL for Time2006) − − (cur | prev) 22:24, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (216,547 bytes) (-7)‎ . . (→‎Open collaboration) − − (cur | prev) 22:20, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,554 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎Nature: User-generated content is not specific to Wikipedia. move "Language editions" section out of Nature (whatever "Nature" means)) − − (cur | prev) 21:31, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,522 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (mark num_users reference as failing verification and request new one) − − (cur | prev) 21:20, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,491 bytes) (+111)‎ . . (lead: give example of usage as common noun. shorten first sentence) − − (cur | prev) 20:58, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,350 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Impact: move first paragraph from Cultural significance to Readership) − − (cur | prev) 20:56, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,350 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Impact: move Cultural significance just below Readership) − − (cur | prev) 20:45, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,350 bytes) (-64)‎ . . (→‎Cultural significance: flag broken reference (freedom of panorama)) − − (cur | prev) 20:38, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,414 bytes) (+99)‎ . . (→‎Cultural significance: flag BBC reference as broken) − − (cur | prev) 17:30, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,315 bytes) (-232)‎ . . (→‎History: avoid misleading phrasing about February 2014 traffic) − − (cur | prev) 00:26, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,547 bytes) (-415)‎ . . (refactor references to Wikipedia vs the small screen) − − (cur | prev) 23:14, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,962 bytes) (+258)‎ . . (lead: attempt to clear up "Wikipedia"'s ambiguity) − − (cur | prev) 22:25, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,689 bytes) (+18)‎ . . (avoid contradiction on language count in lead, opting for vaguer language. request reference on contradictory language count) − − (cur | prev) 22:20, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,671 bytes) (-20)‎ . . (remove outdated and misleading article count from lead. acknowledge existence of bans) − − (cur | prev) 22:07, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (216,691 bytes) (-10)‎ . . (lead: clarify the kind of ranking in question) − − (cur | prev) 22:05, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,701 bytes) (-134)‎ . . (shorten lead on popularity and avoid contradiction with the template on rank) − − (cur | prev) 18:11, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,820 bytes) (+80)‎ . . (→‎Language editions: ) − − (cur | prev) 16:17, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (216,740 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (→‎Internal quality control and assessment of importance: language. shorten) − − (cur | prev) 02:50, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,749 bytes) (-33)‎ . . (→‎Analysis of content: move Citing Wikipedia inside Accuracy of content. is a subsection warranted?) − − (cur | prev) 02:45, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,782 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Analysis of content: move Medical information from Quality of writing to Accuracy of content. surely a better fit, if not a good one) − − (cur | prev) 02:15, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,707 bytes) (-89)‎ . . (request reference for historical hardware and update) − − (cur | prev) 01:56, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,796 bytes) (-3)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: request to specify regulations. more encyclopedic tone) − − (cur | prev) 01:48, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (216,799 bytes) (+5)‎ . . (→‎Contributors: oops) − − (cur | prev) 01:45, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,794 bytes) (+43)‎ . . (→‎Contributors: there is more than one Goldman. request reference about edit-a-thons. request clarification of "top 2%-10%") − − (cur | prev) 02:36, 25 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,693 bytes) (+49)‎ . . (disambiguate "Wales". flag broken reference. flag reference failing verification and request new one) − − (cur | prev) 04:04, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,499 bytes) (+146)‎ . . (Undid revision 616859409 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) discussion of "weight" is not necessarily discussion of a "majority “weight” of viewpoints") − − (cur | prev) 03:59, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,353 bytes) (-45)‎ . . (lead: remove reference contradicting its statement) − − (cur | prev) 03:55, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (220,398 bytes) (+76)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism) − − (cur | prev) 02:57, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,277 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (→‎Mobile access: request to clarify "enumerative approach") − − (cur | prev) 02:41, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,263 bytes) (+72)‎ . . (lead: restore request to specify standards for quality assurance) − − (cur | prev) 02:31, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,191 bytes) (-61)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism: Seigenthaler: clarify. assistant and assassination are not exclusive.) − − (cur | prev) 02:28, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (220,252 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism: Seigenthaler) − − (cur | prev) 02:15, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (220,240 bytes) (-15)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism: avoid redirect to Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident. simplify) − − (cur | prev) 02:05, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,255 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (→‎Dispute resolution and arbitration: Dispute resolution != Arbitration Committee) − − (cur | prev) 01:59, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (220,238 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (→‎Readership: remove confusing "however") − − (cur | prev) 01:53, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,249 bytes) (-913)‎ . . (→‎Automation: request reference about bots blocking edits. shorten by replacing poor and lengthy coverage of so-called incident with expanded description of bot roles) − − (cur | prev) 01:46, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (221,162 bytes) (+64)‎ . . (→‎Automation: fix WP edit warning bots 1) − − (cur | prev) 01:35, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (221,098 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (→‎Automation: oops) − − (cur | prev) 00:37, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (221,092 bytes) (-226)‎ . . (→‎Automation: shorten (Lih)) − − (cur | prev) 00:31, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (221,318 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (→‎Editing: structure) − − (cur | prev) 00:28, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (221,283 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (→‎Editing: fix caption) − − (cur | prev) 00:24, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (221,266 bytes) (-194)‎ . . (→‎Editing: compact) − − (cur | prev) 00:18, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (221,460 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (→‎Editing: miscellaneous reverts/further improvements) − − (cur | prev) 01:58, 14 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,664 bytes) (+74)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism: change image caption to describe image) − − (cur | prev) 23:25, 13 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,590 bytes) (+146)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: mark references as failing verification) − − (cur | prev) 23:23, 13 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,444 bytes) (+42)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: mark "Wikipedia experience sparks national debate" reference as dead) − − (cur | prev) 18:54, 13 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (214,372 bytes) (-20)‎ . . (avoid redundant "large body of rules and regulations for editing") − − (cur | prev) 18:51, 13 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,392 bytes) (+73)‎ . . (request to specify vague addition to lead on body of standards for quality assurance) − − (cur | prev) 18:48, 13 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,319 bytes) (+30)‎ . . (→‎Mobile access: request reference about ""All of the above" approach") − − (cur | prev) 18:38, 13 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,289 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (Undid revision 615902054 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) restore "similar rate of "serious errors"" instead of merely "comparable") − − (cur | prev) 20:34, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,154 bytes) (+23)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: challenge definition of "majority “weight” of viewpoints") − − (cur | prev) 20:25, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,131 bytes) (-612)‎ . . (Undid revision 615838303 by TakuyaMurata (talk) broken reference, missing context) − − (cur | prev) 20:20, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (213,743 bytes) (-3)‎ . . (lead: simplify "edited articles". language) − − (cur | prev) 20:17, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,746 bytes) (-64)‎ . . (lead: don't treat NPOV, already covered in body. everyone claims to be "neutral" anyway) − − (cur | prev) 20:12, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,810 bytes) (+1)‎ − − (cur | prev) 20:09, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (213,809 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (fix parenthesis missing parent sentence) − − (cur | prev) 20:06, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,810 bytes) (+50)‎ . . (lead: clarify comparison with Britannica) − − (cur | prev) 18:32, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (213,760 bytes) (0)‎ . . (typo) − − (cur | prev) 02:49, 1 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,834 bytes) (-800)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: move paragraph on Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia to Criticism of Wikipedia) − − (cur | prev) 02:43, 1 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (213,634 bytes) (-22)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: shorten further) − − (cur | prev) 02:38, 1 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,656 bytes) (-198)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: shorten new paragraph - few organizations have a size limit on rules, particularly when they're being told to implement one)

Edit history of tag bombing and deletions for August 2014
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
− ::::::(cur | prev) 05:01, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,454 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism: avoid suggesting that a single major vandalism case has happened) (undo | thank) − − ::::::(cur | prev) 04:08, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,391 bytes) (+52)‎ . . (→‎Community: Failed verification|reason=No mention of a study performed in 2012. request reference about 2010/2012 studies) (undo | thank) − − ::::::(cur | prev) 03:57, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,339 bytes) (-141)‎ . . (→‎Community: remove unclear part (statistics)) (undo | thank) − − ::::::(cur | prev) 02:58, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,446 bytes) (+39)‎ . . (→‎Community: remove contradictory "however". language) (undo | thank) − − ::::::(cur | prev) 02:52, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,407 bytes) (-63)‎ . . (→‎Community: request reference on "often with a reference to other Web 2.0 projects such as Digg"... whatever that means) (undo | thank) − − ::::::(cur | prev) 02:45, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,470 bytes) (+107)‎ . . (lead: request clarification of quote) (undo | thank) − − ::::::(cur | prev) 02:42, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (215,363 bytes) (-10)‎ . . (lead: remove "however") (undo | thank) − − ::::::(cur | prev) 02:40, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,373 bytes) (+36)‎ . . (→‎Automated editing: restore request reference about bots application for ban enforcement) (undo | thank) − − ::::::(cur | prev) 02:35, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,337 bytes) (+425)‎ . . (Undid revision 619916164 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) Per Talk) (undo | thank)

Edit history of tag bombing and deletions for September 2014
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
− (cur | prev) 02:11, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,081 bytes) (-124)‎ . . (→‎Language editions: remove Largest Wikipedias/graph (unclear, redundant)) (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:59, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,045 bytes) (+65)‎ . . (request to clarify lead's last sentence) (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:56, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,980 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (→‎Diversity: request clarification of about "the potential of existing editors to nominate more women administrators") (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:53, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,945 bytes) (+53)‎ . . (→‎Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia chapters: request reference on finances) (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:48, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,892 bytes) (+27)‎ . . (→‎Diversity: Wales agreed to what?) (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:45, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,865 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (→‎Coverage of topics and selection bias: request reference about number of locations covered) (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:38, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,857 bytes) (+109)‎ . . (lead: flag dubious figure on Britannica) (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:36, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,748 bytes) (+195)‎ . . (→‎Language editions: mark statistics on North America as failing verification) (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:31, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,553 bytes) (-144)‎ . . (→‎Community: shorten. amend language) (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:28, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,697 bytes) (-61)‎ . . (→‎Community: remove explanation suggested for 60% account desertion, used trying to explain drop of active editros) (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:18, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,758 bytes) (+60)‎ . . (→‎Community: restore flag on vague parenthesis. flag sentence on "outsider"/"insider" terminology as failing verification and request proper reference) (undo | thank)

This last one is only for September and repeats the same pattern of deleting material over and over, and then marking it as missing with multiple citation templates with the apparent objective of delisting the page for Wikipedia at all costs. Most recent diffs are: [203] [204] [205] [206]. Same pattern in July, same pattern in August, now same pattern in September. User:Mj and User:Forbidden and User:IntelligentGuy have tried to keep up by fixing the tag saturation but this pattern is persistent. Request intervention against persistent vandalism. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I should note that I found User:Chealer's editing very disruptive and not at all helpful, and tried to reason with him and others about the situation. I would recommend that the page is reverted to a version from a few weeks or months ago, at least for now. Much more has been removed or mangled than has been fixed or improved.--ɱ (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

User:StanTheMan87

Every time the image of Mullah Omar is deleted [207] right away StanTheMan87 (talk · contribs) uploads another copy of the same image. On his user page he wrote "I detest wik-i-diots." [208], He's edit-warring on Taliban page [209] and pov pushing on other pages. Looks to me like single purpose account with specific agenda and likely another editor's sockpuppet.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I re-upload that image becuase I see no reason as to why it must be taken down on a supposed copyright violation when it's in the Public Domain being published by the U.S State Department. "I detest wik-i-diots" is in reference to users such as Dannis243 who revert edits without justifying them, as you can see [210]. POV pushing? Since when is citing sources on the documented elimination of minorities under the Taliban regime POV pushing? See [211] Single purpose account? Since when is it an offense to edit articles based on historical interest? See [212] [213] [214] [215] Specific agenda? Please, am I meant to be some agent of the Taliban, when I upload a U.S State Department wanted image of their leader onto Wikipedia for scholarly discussion? I do it for Wikipedia's benefit and those that use it, not for my own self-gratification. Sock puppetry? I only have one account, launch some sort of investigation if it pleases you. StanTheMan87 (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As for the image, in my experience US government websites tend to be pretty bad about actually ensuring the images they host are PD, though in most cases those sites don't have the kind of claim the RFJ website does. A big issue is that, at least on the file page, the date and author of the photograph are unknown. The type of image suggests it wasn't taken clandestinely, but instead professionally... it seems likely the image is not PD. It should probably be deleted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that the FAQ on the RFJ cite does specify that images that have copyright will be tagged as such and reusers are required to get the proper rights for reuse for those, and this image is not tagged with that, then it is not our fault that the RFJ misclaimed this as PD; they are an authorative source here, and thus I see no issue with calling that image PD, unless we can ultimately verify that it is a true copyvio. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I just don't think it's a credible claim of being in the PD. It has a number of markings indicating it's a studio photo. And without the original source, author, or place of publication, how are we to really evaluate the claim that it's in the PD? At least military photos will tell you the name and rank of the photographer who took an image, and give you an indication of when and where it was taken. This has absolutely nothing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I would think or hope that the people in charge of that site did sufficient research to chase down the source for the image. Also keep in mind: the US does not respect copyrights of certain countries (the ones listed with "none" in here), so if this photo originated from one of those countries, the US gov't would consider it public domain. --MASEM (t) 03:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but at the very least my experience (and I'm sure that of others) has borne out that most federal agencies have no clue what's going on when it comes to copyright. The fact that there is no source, author, or date information only makes it worse. We just don't know. This is a pretty straightforward application of the same precautionary principle used over at Commons. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

So the monkey selfie stays, and a picture of a dangerous human goes? Come on. Try not to make Wikipedia look stupid. Maybe at least wait until someone actually complains to Wikimedia about that photo - which is highly unlikely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I could find no evidence of 3RR by User:StanTheMan87, the issue of the image's copyright is clearly open to debate as seen above and ANI is not the correct venue to broach the topic, interest in a specific topic is not a hallmark of a single-issue account, sock inquiries should be brought up in a different forum, and make an uncivil statement like "I hate wik-idiots" without directing it at a specific user doesn't seem to violate WP:CIVIL. DocumentError (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

If I may have an input into this discussion, is it possible if the U.S government purposefully enhanced the quality of the image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mullah_Omar.png from the undoubtedly original version http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/120123_r21781_p323.jpg for identification purposes? This is directed at Mendaliv (talk · contribs) who suggested said image was taken professionally as opposed to clandestinely. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggest that a thread at WP:PUF be opened to discuss the image issues, to separate out if any admin action is necessary --MASEM (t) 14:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The image is NOT one of those mug shots created by a U.S. federal government employees. It is obviously a pre-2001 Afghanistan made image. Other websites may use it but it cannot be used in Wikipedia. Plus, the guy in the picture cannot be verified as being Mullah Omar, it's just speculation. StanTheMan87 uploaded it to Commons and it was deleted, he then uploaded to Wikipedia and it was deleted and now he re-uploaded it. He seems to be obsessed with this image. I think he's stirring some kind of trouble in Wikipedia. See this, he removed image of Zalmay Khalilzad and replaced it with a well known bad guy (Mullah Omar). That is obviously not a good faith edit.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Who do you imagine is going to sue Wikipedia over it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the US does not have a copyright agreement with Afghanistan and about 9 other countries (usual suspects here) as it does with most others as it has set up through the Berne convention. As such, even if it was a Afghanistan photo, the US (and specifically the RFJ site) will consider it in the PD. I do note that Jimmy Wales has asked us, when considering works from these areas, that we still do respect their copyrights, but we would probably need evidence that this came from there --MASEM (t) 16:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Given the absurdity of Wikimedia's position on these matters, maybe just replace the wanted-poster picture with the monkey selfie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright agreement with Afghanistan is irrelevant because we don't have any evidence that an Afghan photographer actually took the photo but can only guess. Another problem is that we don't even know if this really is Mullah Omar. Suppose it is not him then we (Wikipedia) would be deliberately misleading the world at large, sort of protecting the real Mullah Omar. The other issue is that StanTheMan87 copied this image from the New Yorker [216] and used another website (RFJ) in the source. (notice the one at RFJ is tiny).--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Do valid sources say it is him? Also, try google-image for the subject and see what turns up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

If CIA can't be sure then we must forget about searching for valid sources. The monkey selfie (File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg) is a better choice than uploading an image of an unknown person as the leader of Islam.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, in response to User:Krzyhorse22 comment on the re-uploading of the image, yes it is true I have uploaded it twice. I have no idea as to why is was ever removed, which is precisely why I re-uploaded it. I thought that adding a PD image to an article in which no image was present would benefit Wikipedia and those that might come across the article for their own private use in order to enhance discussion. We have images of infamous people such as Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Osama Bin Laden so as to expand users understanding of the people they represent. I thought I was making an important contribution but clearly by all the uproar I have created, I was gravely mistaken. Secondly, I added Mullah Omar to the article Pashtun People as a.) He is an ethnic Pashtun and b.) I thought it more appropriate to insert a former Afghan head of state over a former U.S ambassador based on the fact that Afghanistan is the homeland of Pashtuns. There is an image of Saddam Hussein in the article entitled Iraqi People [217] and an image of Joseph Stalin in the article entitled Georgians [218], so clearly by those examples, a person's moral reputation cannot exclude them from being depicted as a part of the ethnic group in which they are a member of. Finally, in regards to the alleged "speculation" over authenticity of the image pertaining to be Mullah Omar, a source from the U.S government is as good as any source if not better, in establishing who is and who isn't an individual, especially one focusing on the apprehension of criminals by the U.S State Department. If the intelligence community of the U.S government are advertising a $10 million bounty for the capture of Mullah Omar, than that is good enough proof to conclude it is indeed him. If User:Krzyhorse22 disagrees, than the onus falls on him to prove otherwise. Allow me to reiterate: With regards to the person being depicted in the image [219], the U.S government believes that the person in the photograph is the person being represented in the article. If User:Krzyhorse22 challenges this assertion, than he/she should take it up with the U.S State Department, as well as the entire intelligence community of the U.S government. StanTheMan87 (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted because it is simply not allowed in Wikipedia. You swapped Khalilzad's image (first Muslim/first Afghan to serve as U.S. Ambassader) with Mullah Omar (a wanted terrorist who only ruled part of Afghanistan as a warlord). This is obviously your attempt to make a particular ethnic group look evil. Pashtun people are not limited to Afghanistan. Like others, they live all around the world and that article is not intended for Afghans but for English readers. You're falsifying articles [220] [221] [222] , adding unreliable/mirror sites as sources [223]. BTW, I just called the head of CIA and he said nobody is sure if that guy in the image is the real Mullah Omar. So now you either accept that monkey face or go find clear evidence.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You have not answered my question, why it is "simply not allowed in Wikipedia"? Elaborate please. My evidence is better than your here-say. I have a certified U.S government source, and the Berne Convention supporting my claim that the image in the Public-Domain, least in the U.S from my knowledge but could also be elsewhere. You have your own rhetoric based on what it appears to be personal and moral objections on the image in question. That's not good enough for removing a perfectly valid image which has 100% relevance on to the article in which it is on. Your claim that I am falsifying articles is baseless, those edits are cited with a source, upon source. Every link you add in which you claim I am somehow ruining Wikipedia is in fact just showing how little you know about Wikipedia. This very discussion for example, shouldn't even exist here. The allegations you have brought against me have been refuted, by User:DocumentError and you just look foolish. I'm not even going to consider responding to your interpretation of what is morally good or evil, which is POV, you should know that Wikipedia is supposed to espouse neutrality, and even when editing the Taliban article I have mentioned atrocities they have committed as both a regime and militia See [224] and [225] so don't even dare accuse me of being some sort of jihadist web sock-puppet. On your supposed phone call with the "head of the CIA", you'll have to submit some sort of evidence in writing, and the CIA will have to also corroborate on your claim. Your claim is therefore not reputable, as you have stated it yourself, it could easily be purely a fabrication and you clearly have a one-sided view on this discussion, as you are pursuing for the image to be removed, and reporting me for all vices under the sun. So now you can either accept the PD image or go find clear evidence. Toodles. StanTheMan87 (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You just called John O. Brennan to consult with him on a Wikipedia ANI? Count me impressed. DocumentError (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

StanTheMan87, without permission, you copied the image from http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/mullah-omars-face . That's why it is not allowed in Wikipedia. About the reward for justice site, whenever it uses an image for its own purposes, it does not mean Wikipedia can do the same. That site is referring to people who want to use their content for personal use. Wikipedia has strict rules, I don't need to teach you go read for yourself. I'm sure you know all of this but pretending stupid. The evidence is that you deliberately concealed the newyorker.com from the file's description but instead posted reward for justice. That's a typical fraud act. Stop ranting about the image, which will get deleted where it is nominated. I reported you here for disrupting Wikipedia. Don't argue with me, admins can see what you're doing. Behave and you won't be getting reported.

DocumentError, it was a joke. If I did you know what he would say.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That image existed long before 2012, the date in the New Yorker article you linked. In the interest of wrapping up this frivolous filing so it doesn't drag on forever, I'd like to ask StanTheMan87 to just stop replying. I regret to be the one to inform you, but you're clearly insane. DocumentError (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll also note, KrzyHorse22, that you have been making [[[WP:NPA|personal attacks]]. , as any further personal attacks will result in your being blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

[Behavior/Misconduct] User:Semitransgenic

Wasn't there also a User conduct noticeboard about behavior and etiquette a few decades back? I will fill my report here, I really am sorry but I could not find the specific board unless the policies have changed and it has been merged with another in which this board has to be close to the right noticeboard for this kind of issue.

User:Semitransgenic has a very colorful way of responding to random people and sure if this is how he talks home or to his mother then good for him but he will not talk this way to me. This disgusting display of human behavior stayed up right there, above a newer post of an of an either totally clueless or ignorant administrator(!) (tools) [text censored by User:KoshVorlon twice] who chose to say absolutely nothing, for one(!!) entire month without no one taking a notice not even the administrators which is a complete failure to contain a breach on both sides, the administrators and Semitransgenetic, who even had time to amend his position and apologize for some of the most disturbing comments I have ever seen on the entire internet but choose not to. It is saddening to see comments like these slip right through because it really shows poor integrity of individual users here. There is no point of being preachy here but people like him don't belong on Wikipedia unless Wikipedia was a discussion board of homemade moonshine-makers and avid wife beaters and even then it would not be acceptable the way he reacted. I demand a sincere apology from him because there is simply no reason or to act like this to your fellow user on Wikipedia. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Other than the WP:NPA violation of calling someone a "prick", not much there. WP:WQA is sadly long gone, and since the NPA is a month ago, not much we can do at this point. It's also nowhere near the level of "disgusting display" that you suggest the panda ₯’ 00:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I knew the board didn't disappear completely but I started to think I made it up in my mind since even my browser couldn't fetch any relevant pages on Google which was strange. Anyhow I don't care about how normal or ordinary you think his comments are it's his hostile tone that you should be offended about not even what words and how many expletives were used in the process because it makes no harm to anyone, it only hurts his reputation and shows what a character he is. That is insignificant. What is not insignificant however is that a full scale ad hominem-fueled "personal attack" just slipped under all radars implying that it happened and it will happen again unless he is penalized whichever way you find to be the best but not too low because again this is not an innocent accident of two clueless parties but a well-construed personal attack that some people usually take to the courts so it would be preposterous to dismiss it as "not much there." ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone a "prick" and saying things like "get a life" lower the level of discussion on WP, tend to inflame and provoke in-kind responses, and create an unfriendly and hostile edit environment. At the same time, implying Semitransgenic is a "moonshine-maker" or "avid wife beater" does the same thing. I think if there were direct admin intervention in these incidents at this initial stage we would see less instances where they fester and snowball into events that result in indefinite blocks. I would very much like to see both ItsAlwaysLupus and Semitransgenic receive a 24-hour block. DocumentError (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I held Wikipedia in high esteem until this happened and I hope it won't happen again. I did not come to Wikipedia to be insulted. Perhaps the policies have changed between the times I wasn't here and it is now okay to attack users perhaps even using racial slurs, learned internet tough guy phrases and of course our favorite penis references in which case I would not bother taking my case here and dealt it with Semitransgenic personally. Also please stop putting words in my mouth, I did not call Semitransgenic a "moonshine-maker" or "avid wife beater" I was merely reflecting on his sick behavior. Is this a public open-court thing that non-administrators are allowed to this discussion? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that would achieve, since this incident has clearly been drawn out over a long period of time. The diff in question is this, definitely not "spam", and during the edit war Semi brought his concern up on the talk page here and there was no real effort from Lupus to discuss the point at hand. Name calling doesn't help, neither does putting warning templates on experienced users' talk pages or wrongly accusing them of spam, and the hyperbolic sky-is-falling tone used in this report is quite frankly ridiculous. Maybe apologise to each other and civilly focus on the content dispute? – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

If copying the entire poriton of one article and inserting it in a hardly coherent section in a second article is not "spam" then I am sure you will educate me on the right terminology. Meanwhile I see it as a spam because he continued in that endeavor more than twice and actually past 3RR but in an extended period of time because not everyone has time to be an editing warrior on Wikipedia so that went unnoticed as well. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

These type of questions can seem hyperbolic until one is the subject of the vitriol be leveled. I think we should work to empathize with User:ItsAlwaysLupus rather than dismissing his concerns as overblown. I would, personally, have my enjoyment of WP lessened if someone was using this type of language toward me. DocumentError (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with DocumentError. I just noticed this thread when looking back at something els, and I do not know all the background. I'm not asking for a block, given the time passed, but the English Wikipedia really needs to get better at not standing for the kind of discourse that I see in the two diffs at the top of this thread. We should expect better of one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:ItsAlwaysLupus has a track record of spewing sentiment that contravenes WP:AGF, some difs:

• [226] edit summary: "How many times do I need to cancel your anti-NPOV crusade" = Bad Faith
• [227] a false accusation of spamming an article by placing a spam warning on user talk page = Bad Faith
• [228] edit summary: "Spam-pushing unrelated sources" a false accusation = Bad Faith
• [229]edit summary: "rv Semitransgenic spammer" = Bad Faith
• [230] edit summary: "Nice brutal South Africa apartheid era-like attempt to annihilate any slightest hints that point to a music style while abusing the same sources to compose the "era" hypothesis intro." = Bad Faith

I ignored the above instances of bad faith behavior, but when it arrived on my talk page, I requested that this user cease from making intentionally inflammatory, and completely false accusations, the user chose to ignore this request. Semitransgenic _talk. 09:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This is without a doubt one of the worst occurences of someone grasping at straws this hard I have ever seen. You not only show no remorse but also are springing so hard to come up with a counterattack even as bad as it is. This guy is unbelievable! Sullying the other party's credibility with anything he could scrape off the barrel but he absolutely fails at giving explanation for his vicious attack. Oh well, if only I forgot that it is voluntary to post here and not bound by any legal obligation. (: ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This is all, also, clearly unacceptable behavior and uses words whose only purpose can be to inflame and provoke. I, therefore, reiterate my call to subject both ItsAlwaysLupus and Semitransgenic to a 24-hour block. This is the minimum block and should not be seen as punishment but as a record-creation action that would allow future violations to be quickly and succinctly addressed by reference to the block as a benchmark point; it would be easy to sort-out who was the problem editor in the future by viewing editor actions from the date of the block forward. I call on both Semitransgenic and ItsAlwaysLupus to volunteer for such a block. Whomever volunteers first will be seen as a leader willing to put WP first, and whomever volunteers second will be seen as a team player willing to work with other. Whomever doesn't volunteer for the block will be seen in an unflattering light. DocumentError (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You certainly deserve a trophy for the loudest person here but what's with those tacky ways of making your random sentences bold to influence anyone's decision. Seriously? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

ItsAlwaysLupus is hereby blocked for 24 hours. This is a contingency block, meaning I don't have any power to enforce it at this time, but I am making a mental note to apply it if I become an admin. DocumentError (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

By the time you are an admin on Wikipedia I will become the sole ruler of Earth so I better watch that tone if I were you. (: ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I just removed your comments about Ed Johnston. Using personal attacks against an administrator isn't going to help you at all, especially since your'e complaining about a user being rude to you . KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, please. No one has mentioned [redacted]'s name here as seen here except you. You can't just force me to accept your patronizing opinions on me then trying to silence me by performing an unauthorized access into my text. I am against bold-splaining as much as the next person but do not ever attempt, as a non-administrator, to censor my text. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If the text violates NPA, then yes, I will remove only the NPA violating part of the text. I don't need to be an administrator to do that. In the same way, I would accept any revert on any text I post the violates NPA as well. Once again, attacking an admin here, when y ou're complaining about being attacked doesn't help your case. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 11:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not care whether it's a lower admin or a big admin so stop assuming I am attacking anyone when I am not. He could be a president of Universe for all I care but the proof he is an admin and he let it pass by was all what I needed. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I will accept the proposed 24 block but only on the condition that an overall consensus to impose this punishment is demonstrated here. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to use voluntary blocks to document anything. At this point, it's simple. Both editors need to recognize that two wrongs do not make a right, and both editors need to cut it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Very concise, very short. I like your post. The discussion as it is now sadly won't lead anywhere because this is a classic children waging a "pointing fingers at each other" war, that I called some of his edits a "spam" (I stand by my words that what he did he did overstep his boundaries and went on just plain destructive behavior but perhaps there is another less "bad" word for that) and he now points back at me saying bad faith which is pointless name-calling so his word has as much worth as mine in this particular example but he uses it to divert attention from the fact that he done wrong and ain't gonna apologize. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This thread is getting tediously dense in personal attacks. I don't see a single diff here that shows how Semitransgenic spammed the project, engaged in "destructive behavior", or assumed bad faith. Coming here and demanding an apology (seriously?), blowing off your own disruptive behavior with personal attacks, and then making baseless accusations make me think that maybe you are the one who should be blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't you have the courtesy to respect the boundaries of a private conversation? Do have the impression that my comment was intended for you even? Who are you? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

ItsAlwaysLupus, this is not a private conversation, this is a general noticeboard where every editor may comment and reply. You may dislike what NinjaRobotPirate said, or disagree with it, and you may point out where he is wrong, but you don't have the option to shut him out of this discussion. Fram (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Maharaja Agrasen College, Jagadhri

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.

---

Maharaja Agrasen College, Jagadhri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Concentrated effort by multiple accounts to include content [231] that does not adhere to WP:BLPCRIME. Page is already semi protected. BLP/N discussion  NQ  talk 01:53, 3 September 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.

Seoshaggy is probably a spam account

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

---

User User:Seoshaggy reposted a grammatically deficient, unwikified, unencyclopedic spam article speedy-deleted on August 30th, under a different title. The first article was "Property in Biwadi"; this one is Why_people_shifting_to_bhiwadi. Bkalafut (talk) 07:01, 3 September 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.